[
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1038ewy",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                "date": "2023-01-04",
                "score": 768,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j2xhy1w",
                "author": "Such_Credit7252",
                "body": "I personally had no issue with Skip's tweet, but it's about reading the room.\n\nDozens of other people were commenting on the situation and going out of their way to not mention or discuss the game outcome but rather focus purely on Hamlin and sending throughts/prayers instead.\n\nOnce I observed that happening it was obvious that the first person to start talking about the impact on game/standings that person was going to be vilified for not being respectful enough of Hamlin and the situation. \n\nAnd if that person happens to be Skip Bayless, who makes his living by being hated... *of course* it would play out exactly as it did.\n\nEverything about it was predictable and obvious. If I had a social media audience, there is no way I would have said anything about the game/standings until at least the next day. Not because I couldn't handle the topic being discussed, but because I could read the room.",
                "date": "2023-01-04",
                "score": 273,
                "parent_id": "1038ewy"
            },
            {
                "id": "j2xil4n",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "!Delta for the idea that any discussion away from Hamlin was going to be ridiculed because of social pressure regardless of if it was actually insensitive or not. I think that is an accurate perspective.",
                "date": "2023-01-04",
                "score": 125,
                "parent_id": "j2xhy1w"
            },
            {
                "id": "j2xiro4",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Such_Credit7252 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Such_Credit7252)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-01-04",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j2xil4n"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xf3ng",
                    "author": "Kazthespooky",
                    "body": "Well I think you need to evaluate the critism levied against the tweet. \n\n> Former NFL player Jacob Hester told Bayless to \"read the room, and have a heart.\" Vikings cornerback Patrick Peterson, former NFL player Darelle Revis and NBA analyst Kendrick Perkins, among many others, also criticized Bayless.\n\nIf you say something insensitive to the room, do you need to apologize? It's up to the person who said it. \n\nPersonally, I don't think it needed an apology either but that's for skip to decide right?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xflbp",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The most liked response to his tweet isn't \"read the room,\" but is \"You're a sick individual\" Quickly followed by \"I hope they fire you\" and \"all you care about is football when Damar Hamlin's life is at risk.\"\n\nFurther, how is the tweet insensitive to the room? Seriously, I see nothing insensitive in that tweet at all. Not one thing.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "j2xf3ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xg2wf",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "If I say something and a not insignificant portion of my audience comes away with the wrong understanding of what I intended to say, it seems reasonable to apologize \"if I was misunderstood\" and to clear up the misunderstanding. Particularly if I'm a public figure whose job could be on the line if this misunderstanding isn't cleared up.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xgkvr",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "It may be reasonable to clarify the meaning, though even there if what's being said is simple and straightforward I don't necessarily agree. But if someone gets upset and becomes rude because they are ignoring the plain meaning of what is said and is rather overtly ignoring what was said, that is not a reason to apologize.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2xg2wf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xhcxt",
                    "author": "NotSoPrudence",
                    "body": "He knows or should damn well know the NFL has contingencies in place for events like this. Yes, it was a crucial game for playoff seeding. But to present this like the NFL is clueless was asinine on his part. He should apology for putting such stupidity into the social media aether.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xi2cj",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "> the NFL has contingencies in place for events like this\n\nExcept they don't.   \n\n\nThat's why the commissioner and the player's union were rushing to figure out how to respond.   \n\n\nWhen was the last time you recall a game being cancelled due to an injury?   \n\n\nWhen was the last time you recall a game being canceled due to an injury?   \n\n\nI honestly do not think one ever has been before. \n\n  \n I'd note as a former combat medic, that a spinal injury of that magnitude is not something one is guaranteed to survive either. Jack Tatum destroyed Darryl Stingley and he nearly died on the field. The game went on.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j2xhcxt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xhyq0",
                    "author": "IndependenceAway8724",
                    "body": "If you say something that unintentionally hurts people's feelings, and they're people you care about, you apologize.\n\nAn apology is a way of expressing regret and sympathy, not a confession of guilt. It doesn't cost you anything to say your sorry, especially if you actually feel sorry.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xjl6q",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "I would suggest that interpersonal communication inside the context of a relationship with someone you care about is not the context of a tweet :)\n\nAnd in such situations, I personally still tend not to apologize. Rather, I'll go for reframing what was said to help with understanding.  I don't believe I'm responsible for other people's emotional states, particularly if such states are caused by failing to consider the information in front of them.  If I honestly can not see how what I said is offensive, then I don't apologize for it. \\*shrug\\*.\n\nMaybe I'm weird but my incorrect understanding of what someone was trying to say isn't a reason for me to get upset. It's a reason for me to slow down and ensure I comprehend correctly. So I don't think it's a reason for others to either.\n\nNow, if I ask follow-up questions, and come to believe I do understand what is being said correctly and it's still offensive, then I absolutely can and do get upset, and would want an apology. But my first step is to ensure I know what was actually communicated, not to jump right to the end and assume my understanding is infallible.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "j2xhyq0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xlrsv",
                    "author": "Catyl_Music",
                    "body": "Who the fuck is that?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xnb7v",
                    "author": "cleverorator",
                    "body": "I agree with you nearly completely with one minor detail: People, especially performers, are responsible for how there words are interpreted. This is his job and livelihood.\n\nI don't see how anything he said is worthy of the hate he got, I think he was correct and making an artistic choice in delivery. The problem is that his choice obscured his message.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 23,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xr46d",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">People, especially performers, are responsible for how there words are interpreted\n\nI don't think that people in general are responsible for how a listener interprets their word choice. I do think that if they want to be effective communicators and the listener asks for clarification, they have a responsibility to provide it. That's sort of the \"contract\" of being a good-faith interlocutor.   \n\n\nBut if someone hears a statement and jumps to a conclusion not fully supported by what was literally said, that is not the speaker's fault or responsibility.   \n\n\nHowever, I think your point about performers is exciting and worth exploring. I think you're spot on when talking bout someone \"on screen\" where the audience has no ability to ask for clarification. But does that extend to mediums like Twitter that are more interactive? I'm not sure. I could see arguments both ways.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "j2xnb7v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xorzj",
                    "author": "liknoramus",
                    "body": "This is a pretty standard turn of events for Twitter, right?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xsrtn",
                    "author": "xanadu13",
                    "body": "I think you're right technically, but it's what Skip always does. It's just an asshole tweet with really bad timing. Like, let things settle, and let the NFL and NFLPA breathe and try to figure out some options before you come off as the callous one. \n\nBecause also, his tweet is impractical because the players would refuse to do it. Or what, you want to have players actively crying on the field while they play? The overwhelming response from the football culture was to stop the game. If as a commentator who already has a reputation for being cantankerous and over the top is the only one saying what you're saying, you're lacking tact.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xxdqi",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Someone else commented that while what he said wasn't improper, the social context meant that the first person to talk about anything other than Hamlin would be considered callous. That it was Skip Bayless just gave people who already dislike him because he's kind of an ass a reason to jump on him.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j2xsrtn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xxl2a",
                    "author": "gobirds77",
                    "body": "People like to feel holier than thou, so they get righteously upset as opposed to just being rational.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xyg00",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Sure. But there's no reason to apologize to people for their irrationality and their own resulting inappropriate emotional states.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2xxl2a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xy9we",
                    "author": "Chirpy69",
                    "body": "Many have it correct here - it was the order and overall explanation he gave that seems his priority was the game instead of the player. Whether or not it was his intention, being a massive sports personality comes with the territory of revising what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2xym9d",
                    "author": "Gingerchoco",
                    "body": "Not a Skip fan, but I agree. This incident is unprecedented but not by much. On a recent episode of Bomani Jones\u2019 podcast, Domonique Foxworth listed incidents which were a \u201cplay on\u201d in his career. These included people being helicoptered off the field in practice, concussions, all manner of injury, and a player dying after a preseason game. I think the injury began to manifest on-field but not as serious as Hamlin\u2019s.\n\nAt least two people were paralyzed on the field in the early 1990s and those games weren\u2019t stopped. Of course guys regain feeling hours after those hits most times.\n\nI think if this happened pre-Covid they\u2019d have played through it. Myself I don\u2019t have argument with the players one way or the other on the decision to play on.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y3zrt",
                    "author": "TitanCubes",
                    "body": "While I don\u2019t think there was anything wrong with Skip\u2019s tweet, he made a mistake of opening the door for controversy (unless it was intentional for controversy of course which is a real possibility) and as a talking head he should have the most scrutiny since his job is literal to put out his thoughts to be judged. \n\nHowever I think there was a very large demand for outrage over this incident with little actual supply. I think when a lot of players and just moral people in general see this happen they have an image in their mind of people who are saying \u201cplay on\u201d. In this case I don\u2019t think that really existed at all but Skip opened the door and people took out their frustration on him.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y48o6",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I get what you mean because generally I think people go way too hard on celebrities. People literally saying \u201cwe need to cancel skip immediately\u201d and then people will be on here saying \u201ccancel culture isn\u2019t real\u201d.  It\u2019s goofy. \n\nWith that being said I personally do think the tweet was a little insensitive though. What was skip trying to actually say by bringing up the games and what the nfl is going to do? Then saying it\u2019s all so irrelevant? If it\u2019s irrelevant then why are you mentioning it ?  It just leaves so much room for misinterpretation and when someone\u2019s in a life or death situation you probably should proofread your tweet a little bit before putting it out there for everyone to see. And if he wasn\u2019t aware until after, about how bad the injury was, then he shouldn\u2019t of been tweeting until doing his research on what actually happened. That\u2019s his whole job. He knows the times we live in where things can be taken the wrong way. \n\nBut no I don\u2019t think he\u2019s REQUIRED to apologize or explain but yet he already did. So why are we even debating whether he needed to or not. He chose to on his own.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2yi96b",
                    "author": "amazondrone",
                    "body": "> What was skip trying to actually say by bringing up the games and what the nfl is going to do?\n\nThe NFL had an _immediate_ decision to make about whether to abandon the game or play on, however irrelevant such a decision may have seemed at the time, or indeed seem now, it still had to be made. So commentating about that and the relevant factors, sensitively and after previous remarks about the even more immediate concern of the medical emergency, seems appropriate to me.\n\n> Then saying it\u2019s all so irrelevant? If it\u2019s irrelevant then why are you mentioning it ?\n\nHe didn't say it _was_ irrelevant, he said it _seems_ irrelevant. The difference is subtle and I obviously don't know if it's a distinction Bayless intended, but my interpretation (as I hinted above) is that he was acknowledging that there was an immediate decision to be made even though it seems like it should be irrelevant.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "j2y48o6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y4v3a",
                    "author": "epanek",
                    "body": "Yes people die all the time but context matters. How it happened and the idea a young person can have their life taken away, although logical, in this context is shocking. \n\nI\u2019m this case it was personal to millions of people. How many people have died on live tv?  Not many \n\nHumans have an ego protecting protocol to place things we try to ignore in a far away bucket. Sports by their nature are where humans go to escape hardship. Be it work or divorce or politics or death. \n\nIn this case millions of people had their ego protected illusion of escape shattered by a person nearly dying. \n\nIn effect his accident forced reality back on us in a way we strongly object to.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y6e5g",
                    "author": "Gold_Biscotti4870",
                    "body": "Horse pucky. It was not appropriate to even discuss the NFL at a time when a man is fighting for his life. The entire subject should have been his health and welfare and not the impact of n to playing the game at another time. Something is wrong with us when we cannot sense when something said and when is said and whether or not saying it is appropriate. It is not the truth that matters it is the compassion and empathy required at the time in which he wrote it. This is really not hard.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ys21o",
                    "author": "disisathrowaway",
                    "body": "Countless lives are ruined by playing football every. single. year.\n\nWhat made this player's suffering more serious than every other players'?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j2y6e5g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y6j7e",
                    "author": "Duckbilledplatypi",
                    "body": "The issue is that he expressed concern over the game in such a way as to increase its relative importance (and thus decrease the relative importance of a life-threatening issue), by the way he ordered the phrasing.\n\nHad he said something like the following -  *in this order* - no one would complain\n\n1. Hamlin is priority #1. Everything else is irrelevant \n2. NFL has/will postpone the game\n3. We'll figure out when to reschedule it later.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y919j",
                    "author": "UnfortunateJones",
                    "body": "He kinda did with the previous 2 tweets. First one literally said that he prayed for Hamlin. \n\nI consider those tweets as part of a series. And the outrage is pulling a sentence out of a paragraph.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j2y6j7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y6s2d",
                    "author": "alkforreddituse",
                    "body": "As a football (soccer) fan, i get where he came from. This thing happened a lot of times in the sport, it isn't a surprise for me anymore when it happens in another. Game continues and the person in the incident survived, even went back to play in another season.\n\nHowever, my problem is him demanding to get the game resumed when most people agree that cancelling it is a better way to go, because they want to give more attention to the incident rather than anything else\n\nFor me, it's better for Skip to just keep the tweet for himself this time. Not because what's right, but to keep things less complicated than what it already is\n\n​\n\nIn short, READ THE MF ROOM",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y6toz",
                    "author": "TheGreatHair",
                    "body": "also screws with fantasy football, which is a high part of the nfl",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y7tuz",
                    "author": "TruthSpeakin",
                    "body": "It's people reaching, over reacting, twisting words...happens all the time...someone says something and it's interpretation is twisted...",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j30mvkj",
                    "author": "CassiusClay_",
                    "body": "there\u2019s no twisting words\ud83d\ude02he worded it how he wanted too because that\u2019s what he meant\u2026 skip isn\u2019t 13, he knows how to communicate. He said clear as day \u201cbut how?\u201d, that paired with \u201cwhich suddenly seems irrelevant\u201d. He\u2019s clearly not talking about why the game should be postponed like he\u2019s trying to backpedal and claim",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2y7tuz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2y9cmc",
                    "author": "ubzrvnT",
                    "body": "His apology or explanation WAS required because he made the tweet to elicit one. Knowingly, it would create buzz and controversy. It worked. You made a CMV about it.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ydmva",
                    "author": "Mercury756",
                    "body": "Ofc it didn\u2019t. The only problem with that tweet was it highlighted just how ignorant and illiterate the vast majority of people on Twitter have become. Skip might be a loud dumbass most of the time, but in this situation he was spot on. And if you still don\u2019t get it people just look at it from the antithesis of his argument. If you are in disagreement with him then you have either of two arguments; 1) there are no major implications on the game nor the rest of the nfl teams and there would be small and few further reaching problems created. Or 2) the kids life doesn\u2019t matter. Or I suppose a third which is both. 1 is just objectively false and two makes you a pile of garbage, so again either people reading this have no reading comp skills, they just want to hate on him, or they\u2019re horrible people to start with. So no, obviously it didn\u2019t need an apology.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2yjkgm",
                    "author": "Federal-Membership-1",
                    "body": "-but how?. He didn't say \"but why?\" The question remains. How are they gonna do it?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ykrxf",
                    "author": "oldfogey12345",
                    "body": "Bayless is paid to be an A hole.  Christ I wish I had his job.\n\nBut after a tragedy big enough to postpone a game, you have to wait at least a week to talk about things like season continuation or you get backlash.\n\nBayless is paid to deal with backlash. Him being a prick like that is why he is hired..\n\nBut it's a classic case of too soon.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ylusz",
                    "author": "BreeCherie",
                    "body": "People misunderstood the tweet. Clarify, apologize for the misunderstanding, and delete the tweet. Instead he is refusing to delete the tweet which all I can really amount to is stubbornness. Is the tweet really the important thing right now?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ylzxd",
                    "author": "TheodoraRoosevelt21",
                    "body": "I can see your perspective on this issue. It's true that Bayless' tweet was factually accurate and didn't show disrespect towards Hamlin or his family. However, it's also important to consider the context in which the tweet was made and the potential impact it could have on others.\r  \n\r  \nIn the moment, Bayless was commenting on a serious medical emergency involving a player on the field. It's understandable that some people might find it inappropriate to immediately shift the focus to the potential impact on the game and playoffs, especially given the uncertainty and gravity of the situation at the time.\r  \n\r  \nFurthermore, it's possible that Bayless' tweet could have been perceived as callous or lacking in empathy towards Hamlin and his family, especially if it was read out of context. It's important to remember that words and actions can have unintended consequences, and it's always a good idea to consider the potential impact of our words on others.\r  \n\r  \nIn summary, while Bayless' tweet may not have required an apology or explanation, it's understandable why some people might have taken issue with it. It's important to always be mindful of the context in which we speak and the potential impact of our words on others.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ymwjy",
                    "author": "flip-flopper69",
                    "body": "Did you watch the game? He was dying on the field at the time, and Skip decides to tweet about the impact delaying the game will have. Maybe, Skip could have tweeted something similar today, but when he is dying on the field? \n\nAlso, most people understand what he meant by the tweet. Yeah, he said that it is irrelevant. It is so irrelevant that it shouldn\u2019t be mentioned. How would you feel if someone talked about your moms inheritance while she is having a heart attack? \n\nAt the end of the day, no focus should have been put on the impact of delaying the game while the guy is dying. End of story.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j36fnsp",
                    "author": "Ossaith",
                    "body": "I love how everyone that is outraged that he \"didn't acknowledge the tragedy of Damar\" are literally ignoring his previous tweets talking about how terrible the situation was.\n\nRead his damn tweets instead of hyper focusing on outrage.",
                    "date": "2023-01-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2ymwjy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2ynowf",
                    "author": "salmonhead66y",
                    "body": ".",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2yt610",
                    "author": "differentfolk",
                    "body": "My question to those who thought it was insensitive is when exactly would it be ok for someone to raise this question that was already on the minds of many? What time would be ideal for you to look at this arrangement of words and punctuation without you clutching your pearls?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2yv2k1",
                    "author": "Quanarin2026",
                    "body": "It\u2019s a football game. Construction work rarely halts when there\u2019s an accident. It\u2019s tragic but everything keeps moving especially when big moneys involved.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2yvcx7",
                    "author": "OJJhara",
                    "body": "This seems like concern trolling",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2z5obf",
                    "author": "GothicToast",
                    "body": "If he had put his last sentence first, he may have avoided the backlash. It was almost like people chose not to read the whole tweet, or they have the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader.\n\nIt was very clear that he was saying \"this game has huge playoff implications, yet none of that matters in the face of this tragedy\"\n\nI guess the response to that could be, \"No shit, Sherlock.\" But I don't see how it would require an apology.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2z8col",
                    "author": "MajesticFxxkingEagle",
                    "body": "So for starters, I largely agree with you in that there is nothing wrong with Skip\u2019s initial tweet and it\u2019s not the terrible statement that people were trying to portray it as. He should not be crucified just because some people chose to imbue the worst possible meaning into their interpretation of that tweet.\n\nThat being said, there are still two issues with it:\n1) While the true meaning of the tweet is the opposite of malicious, the way that it was worded/structured left some room for confusion. Again, while it\u2019s not Skip\u2019s fault that people comprehended the tweet wrong, it could have been reworded to be a clearer message that placed more emphasis on the irrelevance of everything else.\n\n2) Even in context, Skip\u2019s tweet, while not heartless, felt insensitive on some level because even mentioning things like playoff importance just seemed like poor timing, even if it was ultimately for the purpose of calling it irrelevant at the end of the tweet. It\u2019s something that just didn\u2019t need to be mentioned.\n\nWith those two criticisms in mind, my biggest problem with Skip isn\u2019t the initial tweet itself as I think he was in the right. The problem is the doubling down and refusing to acknowledge the potential harm in how people were receiving it. He can defend his actions while simultaneously deleting the tweet and clarifying his intentions. Dying on this hill, even when he\u2019s technically right, is ironically creating a bigger distraction from Hamlin\u2019s life\u2014the very thing he says the nfl season is irrelevant compared to.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zdjuw",
                    "author": "infinitude",
                    "body": "At the moment he fell, not one player on that field cared about the precious season. Not one single player wanted to continue. They are not animals working for our entertainment.\n\nI don't see how he could not have known what was happening without paying attention. In which case, why is he tweeting about something he has yet to inform himself about?\n\nThe tweet was classless and foolish. Skip should have known better. That's why people are upset.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j30asj4",
                    "author": "kevinthejuice",
                    "body": ">I don't see how he could not have known what was happening without paying attention. In which case, why is he tweeting about something he has yet to inform himself about?\n\nNothing really indicates he said all of this at the exact moment the player fell. There was a series of tweets all at different times which suggest he was just live-tweeting his thoughts as the situation unfolded.\n\n>The tweet was classless and foolish. Skip should have known better. That's why people are upset.\n\nNot exactly classless or foolish. If you actually break the tweet down it makes sense. But often on twitter people don't do that an kneejerk reactions happen. A lot of context is required to understand what he might be thinking.\n\nOne concept I think is getting forgotten is the nature of the NFL itself. Fans players, everyone knows a the end of the day \"it's a business\". So my perspective on his question was just open ended to provoke thought and focus on the entity that is \"The NFL\" not the game itself. How will the NFL go forward on this issue? From the perspective of the NFL this game was huge, had many implications beyond the two teams involved. Two playoff teams on a monday night, primetime tv so it was a big $$ draw for the NFL as well. It's never stopped for concussions, complete ankle breaks, leg breaks and other gruesome injuries. A league often seen as dehumanizing to the players.\n\nSo back to the issue now here we are at an incident so different from previous ones we're used to, how does the NFL move forward? We've got an unencountered player safety issue and the league that takes criticism for player safety every single week. Will it take a human approach and postpone the game? Think about how they would go forward with that. The seasons over in two weeks, they can't really just squeeze in a game on short notice before the playoffs start, and there's obvious other logistical difficulties. On the other hand do they just continue the game with the players in the mental state they're in? The message that will send to the rest of the league while they face criticism of player safety among other things.\n\nSo yeah that's the long version of how i interpreted the question he proposed.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2zdjuw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zjcjo",
                    "author": "Juan_Inch_Mon",
                    "body": "I agree with the OP.  The outrage at Bayless over his tweet is ridiculous and smacks of virtue signaling by those calling for his job.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zjmil",
                    "author": "uniqueusername316",
                    "body": "STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS BUNGHOLE AND MAYBE HE'LL GO AWAY!",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zmatk",
                    "author": "megablast",
                    "body": "Whom?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zod11",
                    "author": "Toshiro8",
                    "body": "He needs to apologize for being distasteful. A life or death emergency was unfolding. The only focus should have been on the football players well- being and his family. Bringing up another topic around that situation shows a lack of empathy. He chose to tweet something that took the focus off of the unfolding life and death situation. Football should have been an afterthought. Everyone was in shock and waiting for an update as to his situation. That is why he should apologize.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zp39z",
                    "author": "20sidedhumorist",
                    "body": "Even when I take into context the other tweets, and hear other people try to rationalize this tweet, I still have to disagree for a couple of reasons.\n\nOne, the way it was phrased reflects a passive voice when it comes to the concern about Hamlin's injury in this specific tweet, the \"but how?\" is far too ambiguous in wording to be clear in the terms of \"how would it be scheduled\", and the \"pause\" still reads like an afterthought. If anything, it reads more like \"Well, I've expressed the necessary grief, now to worry about the game\" to me. Just because you can't see it as being interpreted any other way doesn't mean it can't be. Also, at the time, it wasn't clear that the NFL was \"clearly\" planning on postponing. Players were seen warming up and ESPN reported on air that the teams had been given 5 minutes to warm up prior to the teams being pulled by their coaches. Major Twitter trends were calling for the NFL to call the game. When you add the atmosphere on Twitter at the moment of Skip's tweet into it, the above interpretation seems more and more plausible, and Skip doesn't really have a clean track record when it comes to being respectful in his opinions - see the rather personal shot(s) he took at Shannon Sharpe when Sharpe dared to say Tom Brady wasn't having a great season this year.\n\nTwo is what happened on his show today with Shannon. Shannon skipped yesterday because he didn't want to get into it, and when he came back today he started off by trying to clear the air and talk about what happened and why he wasn't on the show. Skip [immediately jumps in and interrupts him](https://www.cnn.com/videos/media/2023/01/03/skip-bayless-apologize-damar-hamlin-cprog-orig-ht.cnn-business) and starts trying to talk over him. Shannon eventually finishes what he was going to say (after berating Skip for interrupting him) and Skip doubles down repeatedly, saying that \"Well nobody here had a problem with it\" in addition to saying that he was \"trying to put himself in the mindset of the NFL execs\" in a different video. It was sloppily worded, it had bad optics, and Skip knows it.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zunop",
                    "author": "paknsaving",
                    "body": "Just want to say I 100% agree with op on this one. I thought I was losing my mind when the initial reaction to the tweet was so unanimously negative and I could not comprehend what Skip said was disrespectful to Hamlin. \n\nIn my view, I believe what happened was an issue of timing. People were in the midst of an immensely emotional situation, and the tweet was an avenue for feelings to be directed towards. A lot of this I believe is partly due to Skip\u2019s reputation for being a contrarian.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j32a69h",
                    "author": "icecubtrays",
                    "body": "I guess an apt example would be if you just found out at work a coworker has died. And your boss goes I\u2019m sorry to hear that. Okay now we have to figure out who\u2019s covering her work. Technically he\u2019s correct you guys do, but everyone would be understandably pissed.",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2zunop"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zwiy5",
                    "author": "substantial-freud",
                    "body": "ELI5: aren\u2019t serious injuries fairly common in pro football? Why is this such a big deal?",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zwnzu",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "It isn't. But everyone is acting like it is because most Americans are afraid of death.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2zwiy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zzgvl",
                    "author": "Kaponeo360",
                    "body": "A simple \"Prayers for Demar Hamlin\" or \"Praying for Hamlin\ud83d\ude4f\ud83c\udffe\" would've sufficed. Sometimes it's best to read the room and if you can't do that just stay quiet.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j2zzvre",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "He did say that in the tweet prior. As I outlined in my original post.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j2zzgvl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j306lzp",
                    "author": "dublehs",
                    "body": "I agree, I don't think he said anything wrong. He could have, however, chosen his words more carefully. Especially since he is Skip Bayless. People seem to find reasons to hate on the dude, I personally think he can be fun to listen to (though not always). Anyway, IMO, He was addressing an elephant in the room (that the NFL had a huge dilemma, with playoff implications,  to get figured out). But he should have made clear that it was tomorrow's elephant to be addressed, rather than leaving his words open to interpretation that he think the game should be immediately resumed. I think his intentions were for the former, not the latter.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j308grf",
                    "author": "LaPimienta",
                    "body": "So many people here responding that he should have read the room or been more situationally aware. Maybe I\u2019m cynical, but I don\u2019t think those people really understand Skip Bayless.\n\nI think Skip Bayless tweeted that because he knew that it would be controversial and that he would be reprimanded, but that he is actually right and said only true things. Maybe the backlash was worse than he thought but it feels like people here aren\u2019t catching that this man makes a living off of being \u201ccontroversial.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j30agoz",
                    "author": "Disastrous-Piano3264",
                    "body": "I agree with you. That being said, this is how the masses work when you\u2019re spitting out takes during times of high emotion. \n\nHis tweet would have been interpreted COMPLETELY differently if he removes two words: \u201cbut how?\u201d Those two words give readers the implication that he doesn\u2019t want the game postponed. \n\nReread: \u201cNo doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game. This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome \u2026 which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j30re5z",
                    "author": "marshal_mellow",
                    "body": "You need to be a professional tweet proof reader. That really makes a big difference",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j30agoz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j30aqe8",
                    "author": "abigayl75",
                    "body": "Tweet tweet chirp chirp. Y'all are suckas.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j30l0pn",
                    "author": "Illustrious_Truth313",
                    "body": "When taken literally,  I agree with you. That said,  the last part of being irrelevant seemed akin to a backhanded compliment to me. JMO (Obviously not a compliment,  but the add on after the fact) like he read kt, realized it was insensitive, but still wanted to post it, so added in the last bit.",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3103o6",
                    "author": "_tatersncorn",
                    "body": "Everyone gets offended on someone else's behalf these day",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j31mifz",
                    "author": "wantabe23",
                    "body": "The feeling of the players on the field when something happens that major is completely different after such an insistent. I\u2019ve finished a basketball game after what appeared to be a devastating injury for a player and let me tell you it\u2019s really a dream state. Everything seems so minuscule and pointless, going through the motions while pondering life. It\u2019s a wild head space to be in. I can\u2019t imagine it being on a professional level, not from a play or anything just someone dropping, just like that. \nSeems like there should be a way to get it sorted out one way or another. I don\u2019t give two shits about whoever this talking head is.",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j31o89u",
                    "author": "14ccet1",
                    "body": "Yes he was correct, but some things are more important and take precedence",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j31v42f",
                    "author": "LumpyExamination1077",
                    "body": "if the healthcare workers who saved him are expected to work another case immediately why should football players not continue the game? meanwhile they're making millions a year vs the $20 an hour the healthcare workers are making",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j324m7c",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "That's a really good point.",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j31v42f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j326oig",
                    "author": "icecubtrays",
                    "body": "Like everyone said it was just poor timing and insensitive. Nothing he said was wrong. \n\nThat would be like you just see your coworker just get run over by a car and you go immediately go that\u2019s terrible. we\u2019ll have to find someone to cover her work. Technically yeah you do but at that moment that wasn\u2019t the time or place.",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j32hw6f",
                    "author": "DirtyRead1337",
                    "body": "That\u2019s his job. He and all the other sportscasters/writers are there to talk about the game. Nobody is flipping through the channels to hear Woody Paige\u2019s slightly different worded sentiment then that of Ted Lietner\u2019s obligatory all though sincere thoughts and prayers. It\u2019s almost gratuitous. \n  If something like this befell our President (now or past or in the future) Anderson Coopers job is to give us the news on who and what is or might happen relating to the country interests. This is no different. Obviously you feel for the player his teammates all the players and family. Acknowledge it and do your job. No one is offended. The possibility of offense is all there is. We are either going to allow this absurd behavior or we are going to stop allowing it. Offense is only taken it can\u2019t be given.",
                    "date": "2023-01-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j367fse",
                    "author": "ALegend",
                    "body": "His tweet lacks humanity, empathy or compassion which it not illegal not to have. \n\nIt's a shitty thing to think about playing on in the moment someone has died and been resuscitated (not hurt -- that happens plenty)\n\nIs the text \"wrong\"? Not really, but sure wasn't right and continues support the idea that  player safety is the last thing on everyone's mind when it comes to NFL",
                    "date": "2023-01-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3itqgs",
                    "author": "Repulsive-Tackle6414",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with skips tweet, people are just addicted to being outraged now. Either by ignorance or lack of understanding they misinterpreted or just didn't fully read the tweet. Either way the outrage has been more disgusting than the tweet itself",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1038ewy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "To start, I despise Skip Bayless as a sports commentator and think he's an egotistical jerk and isn't that bright when it comes to most sports. I further find the format of his show unwatchable.\n\nThat said, I think he is being treated unfairly here.\n\nThe full text of the tweet was:\n\n>No doubt the NFL is considering postponing the rest of this game - but how? This late in the season, a game of this magnitude is crucial to the regular-season outcome ... which suddenly seems so irrelevant.\n\nFirst, he was correct, the NFL was considering postponing the rest of the game.\n\nHe was also correct that the game result is important to the playoff slots of multiple teams (at least 4) and thus the income potential of several hundred players, coaches, and staff.\n\nHe is correct that there is no time left in the season to reschedule the game without some herculean changes -- the Superbowl planning takes nearly a year to pull off as an event, so moving it is very non-trivial.\n\nLastly, he's right, all of the above considerations did seem irrelevant. And still do.\n\nNothing he said is disrespectful of Hamlin or his family, indeed, in noting that all of the true content seems irrelevant in face of the medical emergency this one person was enduring, it's explicitly respectful.\n\nNothing he said is untrue.\n\nFurther, his comment in context came after:\n\nA tweet noting that he didn't know what happened to Hamlin and that the players on both teams were really upset. CPR was administered.  And that he was praying for Hamlin and his family. \n\nA tweet noting that he had never seen a more horrific injury and that the players were visibly upset.\n\nThere is absolutely nothing about his tweet that deserves the reaction it received. People are manufacturing offense. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-04",
                    "score": 768,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Skip Bayless' tweet did not require an apology or explanation",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1038ewy/cmv_skip_bayless_tweet_did_not_require_an_apology/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3kydwb",
                    "author": "wikithekid63",
                    "body": "Right? I have two issues with this whole fiasco\n\n1. Am i not allowed to care about the NFL playoffs anymore because something tragic happened? \n\n2. As skip said, it wasn\u2019t relatively relevant at the moment because the main focus was demar\u2019s health but at the same time, people have stakes in these games. Are they not allowed to care about how the games cancellation might affect them? In 99% of fantasy leagues this was the championship week. \n\nI\u2019m not even a \u201chive mind wokeism is bad\u201d kind of person but Jesus Christ. Not everybody had to think the exact same way all the time. People are acting like skip was saying \u201cthe show must go on\u201d. He asked a legitimate question",
                    "date": "2023-01-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1038ewy"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "105qyvz",
                "author": "malachai926",
                "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 56,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3clt80",
                "author": "RollinDeepWithData",
                "body": "One thing I\u2019d like to point out is that asking (not demanding as you characterized it) for a generic prayer (not any particular religion) does not seem particularly political to me. I think this is a good middle ground away from favoring any particularly religion, and it\u2019s not the government saying this so I don\u2019t take a particular issue with it.\n\nDamar\u2019s family has also expressed gratitude for the support which, while I haven\u2019t seen thanks for the prayers in particular, would seem to me they\u2019re not particularly offended by them either\n\nThere\u2019s also the fact that it\u2019s free so anyone can do it as a way to show support to the family.\n\nI think it\u2019s a bit much to gatekeep showing support by requiring money for it to count. Feels gauche.",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 11,
                "parent_id": "105qyvz"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3cqsi6",
                "author": "malachai926",
                "body": ">I think it\u2019s a bit much to gatekeep showing support by requiring money for it to count. Feels gauche.\n\nI guess you do have a point here. Not everyone has the financial ability to donate and it probably shouldn't be considered the \"reasonable\" alternative.\n\n!delta\n\nI guess, if anything, the ideal cost-free show of support would be a tweet at Damar saying \"we love you man, we're pulling for you!\"",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j3clt80"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3cqvqx",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RollinDeepWithData ([8\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RollinDeepWithData)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j3cqsi6"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3c9pvq",
                    "author": "The-Last-Lion-Turtle",
                    "body": "On the political point, separation of church and state does not mean an obligation to purge religion from public spaces. By openly practicing their religion they are not interfering on your rights.\n\nIt was a request, not a demand. There was no force or threat. \n\nIf you are non religious you can view prayer, and wishing good luck or hope as the same.\n\nEven with modern medicine there is a massive amount of uncertainty that's out of doctors control. CPR and a Defibrillator is essentially kicking the heart until it might start going again. Again whether you are religious or not luck is a large factor on whether someone can recover from almost dying.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 32,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3caq13",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "\"Separation of church and state\" doesn't really apply here. The NFL is a private enterprise and can do what they want in that regard. My objections are moral objections, not legal ones; none of my arguments are stemming from any constitutional angle.\n\n>It was a request, not a demand. There was no force or threat.\n\nThere was definitely some cultural threat involved here, though. There was a thread on r/atheism talking about how bothered they were by the religious response to this event, and even there, people called us \"disgusting\" for saying this. IMO there is indeed a strong undercurrent of \"you better comply with religion in your response to this crisis, or we will ostracize you.\" It's not a LEGAL threat and I know I won't go to PRISON for it, but I certainly expected harsh social / cultural consequences for saying this. I didn't even feel comfortable expressing any of this view until I knew Damar was going to be okay, just because I knew I'd get the \"how dare you exploit a tragedy to discuss your beliefs\" line thrown at me, even though the religious community has literally been doing exactly that since the very beginning.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "j3c9pvq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3c9y6y",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">More than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs,\n\nAtheist here. The US has a foundation in Christian ideology and because of that certain things are embedded in culture. In my mind \"Pray for Damar\" is not a demand or instruction like \"go to your room!\" just like celebrating Christmas isn't necessarily a recognition that Jesus was born to Virgin Mary as the Son of God.\n\nTo me this phrase is more shorthand for keeping him in your thoughts and whatnot. I think framing this as a \"demand that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs\" is not accurate.\n\n>Hypocritical:\n\n\"Faith and Football\" have a long history together. This response seems not hypocritical at all to me and perfectly aligned with that history. I mean each team has a chaplain!\n\n>Disrespectful to medical staff: let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life.\n\nPeople generally believe that the medical staff are instruments of God. Yes, the violin makes beautiful music but it's the violinist that's ultimately responsible for it. You and I don't believe the violinist exists, but for those that do it makes perfect sense to thank him, and within this context of understanding their beliefs I don't think it's necessarily disrespectful.\n\nI also don't think your description of what people have said regarding thanks to medical staff is accurate or comprehensive. I definitely saw explicit thank you's to them on multiple occasions throughout the coverage.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 52,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cchl5",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": ">Atheist here. The US has a foundation in Christian ideology and because of that certain things are embedded in culture. In my mind \"Pray for Damar\" is not a demand or instruction like \"go to your room!\" just like celebrating Christmas isn't necessarily a recognition that Jesus was born to Virgin Mary as the Son of God.\r To me this phrase is more shorthand for keeping him in your thoughts and whatnot. I think framing this as a \"demand that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs\" is not accurate.\n\nI think that's a very generous interpretation, and it isn't one that I share. Sure, you just \"keep them in your thoughts\" and don't actually pray, but I see no reason to think that the people saying \"pray for Damar\" don't actually want you to perform the Christian act of petitioning the bearded man in the sky to help save the life of Damar Hamlin.\n\n>\"Faith and Football\" have a long history together. This response seems not hypocritical at all to me and perfectly aligned with that history. I mean each team has a chaplain!\n\nThem simply being religious is not the hypocrisy; it is the religious belief in light of their response to other political events that have confronted the league.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": -12,
                    "parent_id": "j3c9y6y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ca3v3",
                    "author": "themcos",
                    "body": "> I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but **the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much**. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury.\n\nI don't understand the thinking here. Why is the bucket limited in size? Is your view that if you fill the bucket with prayers then you can't donate to a toy drive? This doesn't really make sense, and I'm highly skeptical that it would bear out in the facts. Obviously we don't have data on who donated to the drive, but it seems likely that many of those people also prayed for him. The notion that you can either fill a bucket with prayers *or* donations doesn't really make sense.\n\nAs for disrespect to the medical staff, people and the media have been showering the bills medical staff with praise. I've read plenty of articles specifically highlighting Danny Killington and the bills medical staff as well as praising the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.\n\nLook, I'm an atheist, so on some level I get it. But the point is, a lot of people are *not* atheists, and praying is just a thing that people do when they feel powerless and don't know what's going on. But it's not an either or situation here, and what we have observed *in addition* to the religious BS is tremendous charitable donations and public recognition of the medical staff, first responders, and hospital staff. I don't like religion either, but I don't think there's much to be mad about here.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cc1jc",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": ">I don't understand the thinking here. Why is the bucket limited in size? Is your view that if you fill the bucket with prayers then you can't donate to a toy drive? This doesn't really make sense, and I'm highly skeptical that it would bear out in the facts. Obviously we don't have data on who donated to the drive, but it seems likely that many of those people also prayed for him. The notion that you can either fill a bucket with prayers or donations doesn't really make sense.\n\nThis one is already addressed further down in my post.\n\n>As for disrespect to the medical staff, people and the media have been showering the bills medical staff with praise. I've read plenty of articles specifically highlighting Danny Killington and the bills medical staff as well as praising the University of Cincinnati Medical Center.\n\nI guess the one that really ground my gears here was the tweet from his family in the middle of this incident where they thanked God and nobody else for how their son was doing. But maybe this is an angle I should drop. If it were me, I'd put 100% of the thanks on the medical staff, but I guess there's not necessarily a limit to how much thanking a person can do.\n\n>Look, I'm an atheist, so on some level I get it. But the point is, a lot of people are not atheists, and praying is just a thing that people do when they feel powerless and don't know what's going on.\n\nI know, and like I said, if people were just praying on their own, I wouldn't have taken issue with it. It was the specific requests / demands that OTHER people pray for him that I take issue with.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j3ca3v3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cas2l",
                    "author": "frozenball824",
                    "body": "I\u2019m an atheist and I prayed for damar. I feel like praying for me would be just wishing him a speedy recovery, being glad that he\u2019s ok, etc. To me, it\u2019s not really about praying to the \u201cAbrahamic god\u201d, it\u2019s just praying for his well being. Since I\u2019m not religious, I can\u2019t really speak on the topic of praying to god too well but I believe it is just in good intentions with them trying to raise moral support. \n\nAnother thing I noticed about the medical staff situation is that the trainer and the medical team on the field who administered cpr is credited a bunch, so I wouldn\u2019t say that praying would take away all of the credit for damar being alive today. \n\nFor the politics topic, it\u2019s a different situation. Fans are bringing in religion to pray for the well being of someone who was injured, while the situation with Colin Kaepernick was him expressing his political views on the field. Those are two completely different situations which require different responses. However, I\u2019m not really sure about what an \u201cappropriate\u201d response to his political statements are. Also, a single fan talking about politics isn\u2019t going to be as widespread and a player demonstrating it to thousands of people watching it on tv and in the stadium, which is why I think it\u2019s different.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cbkes",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": ">I\u2019m an atheist and I prayed for damar. I feel like praying for me would be just wishing him a speedy recovery, being glad that he\u2019s ok, etc. To me, it\u2019s not really about praying to the \u201cAbrahamic god\u201d, it\u2019s just praying for his well being.\n\nI guess I just don't understand your logic here. As an atheist, there's no part of you that would believe his well-being would be improved through your prayer. Were you just hoping he would be okay? Because you certainly don't need to fold your hands together and utter words out loud or think them in your head to hope this.\n\n>Another thing I noticed about the medical staff situation is that the trainer and the medical team on the field who administered cpr is credited a bunch, so I wouldn\u2019t say that praying would take away all of the credit for damar being alive today.\n\nYou're combining two of my points here in a way that doesn't quite make sense. I'm saying that prayer takes away from *more constructive methods of showing your support for Damar*, and I'm saying that the *public attention given to God* is what is taking attention away from the people who were actually responsible for saving him.\n\n>For the politics topic, it\u2019s a different situation. Fans are bringing in religion to pray for the well being of someone who was injured, while the situation with Colin Kaepernick was him expressing his political views on the field. Those are two completely different situations which require different responses.\n\nNot sure I follow your reasoning here. The entire Bills team kneeled in prayer right on the field too, but even then, I'm not sure why \"on the field\" is that important to highlight. It was more about him being a member of the NFL and the actions he took while representing the league, both on and off the field. For sure it was the things he was saying in press conferences off the field that were really fueling the fires, so to speak.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "j3cas2l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cd3g6",
                    "author": "Equal-Interaction824",
                    "body": "I think you are totally missing the point of prayer. No one \"forced\" anyone to pray. And, his medical team has not only praised Delmar but his folks have praised his medical team. Not quite sure where you are coming from and certainly do not want to offend. However, it's articles like these that keep the waters muddied when they should be clear that everyone has a choice, an opinion and  in most cases in the US the freedom to express their thoughts as you have. Let's be real, no one forces an atheist to pray but we do pray for them. If you don't want to believe don't. You don't want to be clamored at about religion and we don't want atheists to clamor at our choice and freedom to be religious or believe in a higher power.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cdzx5",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "So then where is a good place to draw the line where we leave each other alone? You are arguing that it should be okay for you to *request* that I pray for him since it wasn't coupled with some sort of threat and demand. Right? You think that doing so is fine, that there's nothing wrong with that, right? \n\nAnd again, it really is not as safe for me to openly decline the request for prayer as you might think. If I were to say, openly, during this crisis, \"no I will not be praying for Damar, I am an atheist and I don't believe in prayer\", I would be openly reviled for saying so, for \"using a crisis to debate religion.\" [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/102i1d1/for_fucks_sake_i_live_in_buffalo_what_happened_to/j2upm9n?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cd3g6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cdm65",
                    "author": "jfpbookworm",
                    "body": "I think one of the problems here is conflating two types of \"religious\" response:\n\n1. Religious people sincerely praying for the health of an athlete and encouraging others to do so in a very general way.\n\nSome examples of #1:\n\n>Damar Hamlin showed us that even in our growingly divided world we are capable of uniting in prayer regardless of race, religion or creed. - Robert Griffin III\n\n>All lines disappear \u2014 there are no winners or losers, no records, no separation by teams. No matter where or when you played, today we are one family, one brotherhood united in prayer for Damar. - Steve Young\n\nWhile these could be irritating to atheists, I think the focus is on unity and not theology.\n\n2\\. Religious people capitalizing on this tragedy to push their agendas.\n\nSome examples of #2:\n\n>After seeing all of the prayers going up for Damar Hamlin on air, online and etc., can someone tell me why we took prayer out of schools? - John K. Amanchukwu Sr.\n\n>Just saw the great news about the miraculous healing of Damar Hamlin. Prayer works. It has been interesting to see prayer embraced by the NFL and broadcasting community. Maybe prayer should be more widely accepted in our culture. - Ken Coleman\n\nThese I find despicable and ghoulish.\n\nEdit to add: I don't think it's a coincidence that most current and former football players are in the first category, and many people who derive an income from religion are in the second category.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cho1j",
                    "author": "Rugfiend",
                    "body": "As a Scotsman, I've spent 53 years considering the US obsession with bs religious twatwafflery despicable and ghoulish.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cdm65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cfftq",
                    "author": "MikeLapine",
                    "body": "> a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also.\n\nLiterally nobody \"demanded\" prayer. They asked for prayers. There's a big difference.\n\n>Is \"religion\" politics?\n\nNo, it's objectively not. That's why one is called politics, the other is called religion, and there is a separation between them.\n\n>Disrespectful to medical staff:\n\nIt's not, never has been, and no reasonable doctor/nurse/EMT has ever felt slighted after hearing \"thank god.\" Also, anyone in the medical field for the credit and recognition doesn't belong there.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ci7ta",
                    "author": "Rugfiend",
                    "body": "The separation being: take a kneel, that's politics, not allowed. Churn out religious wankery, totally fine. Your 'separation' in this context seems to operate entirely contrary to your tenuous hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cfftq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cgqzf",
                    "author": "Equal-Interaction824",
                    "body": "So why say anything? Why does a line need to be drawn? It's no one's business how you or I believe. You have the right to believe as you do the same as I do. I think what I'm trying to say is it shouldn't be a big deal. I don't  tell anyone how to believe. Yes I have requested prayer at times but If I knew you didn't believe I wouldn't ask you. That's between you and your God whoever that may be. I can pray for your soul only and I would not even tell you I was praying for you. I'm just saying that people need to quit the shit stirring about prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cr3w5",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": ">I don't tell anyone how to believe. Yes I have requested prayer at times but If I knew you didn't believe I wouldn't ask you.\n\nHave you ever requested a prayer from anyone whose religious beliefs you didn't completely know? If you went on, say, Facebook, and posted to all your family and friends to pray for someone, I gotta believe at least one of your family or friends doesn't believe that prayer does anything. So to me, that would certainly constitute \"telling someone how to believe\".",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "j3cgqzf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cnse2",
                    "author": "bluntisimo",
                    "body": "What about if he died, should we blame the medical staff?",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3crqd6",
                    "author": "Rodulv",
                    "body": "We should lambast god for ignoring the prayers.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cnse2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cu30x",
                    "author": "A_SNAPPIN_Turla",
                    "body": "As a centrist non religious person I don't really think there's a solid argument for open religious displays or messaging in something like the NFL. I do think in general atheists are pretty annoying and unlikeable as a community. So much so that I don't call myself atheist anymore. I'm all for keeping religion out of schools but in response to tragic events I think it's pretty shitty to stan. \"God\" and \"pray\" are pretty generic and and aren't necessarily exclusive to Abrahamic faiths. I know some pretty crunchy granola types that use both of these words very loosely in terms of belief.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3d0npe",
                    "author": "ItsMalikBro",
                    "body": "At the [UC Medical Center](https://youtu.be/C9cuc4C6Ibc?t=1027) press conference the doctors were asked if they felt the prayers from the people and they smiled and said \"We have, it has been very powerful\"  \n\n\nYou are projecting your own feelings about religion onto the doctors. They could be among the many people who are thanking God for Damar's recovery.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3d3m8t",
                    "author": "The_Steel_One",
                    "body": "Totally agree.  My husband is a cancer survivor and you would not believe how many times someone talks about some \"God\" or Jesus as having saved my husband's life...as one example we even changed dentists because we got so sick of hearing that crap from him.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3d6z39",
                    "author": "cats4life",
                    "body": "Er, I fail to see the exact part where anyone was being ordered to violate their beliefs or forced to adhere to any particular religion. People who do believe that prayer can have an influence on events simply asked that others pray as well; \u201cPray for x\u201d isn\u2019t a command.\n\nIf you want to be able to express your own religious beliefs or lack thereof, you can\u2019t complain that a popular demonstration by people doing the same is \u201cexcessive\u201d. A man nearly died, and people sent him their well wishes and prayed for his safety. What part of that is excessive?\n\nAnd if you really want to talk about Colin Kaepernick, then we can talk about how he\u2019s a liability. A mediocre football player who stirs controversy wherever he goes; I wouldn\u2019t hire someone with his tendencies to work anywhere, much less in a highly publicized sport. And if you really want to say that the NFL victimized Kaepernick for speaking out about his beliefs, then I have to ask why the hell he\u2019s so desperate to get back in? He\u2019s always talking about it, and has tried repeatedly despite it being blatantly obvious that he\u2019s not good enough to justify putting such a volatile loudmouth on the field.\n\nAnd I\u2019ve heard the argument that thanking God minimizes doctors and nurses a thousand times, and it\u2019s just lazy. No one is saying that his doctors aren\u2019t talented, or his nurses aren\u2019t dedicated. They believe that God oversees and influences the course of events, and so they\u2019re glad that such talented and dedicated people were put in the right place at the right time. God may have guided the doctor\u2019s hands, but any Christian will tell you that you won\u2019t become a doctor by praying your way through med school.\n\nPeople pray and thank God because it\u2019s comforting to rely on a higher power. Through the hardest times in a person\u2019s life, knowing that their God is bigger than their problems and they will overcome is sometimes all a person has. Don\u2019t try and rob them of that because you deem public support as excessive.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3d8mum",
                    "author": "Conscious-Store-6616",
                    "body": "I can kind of get where you\u2019re coming from. I am somewhat religious, so the generic \u201cpray for Damar\u201d stuff doesn\u2019t bother me. I did, however, spend some time living in a heavily Muslim country as a non-Muslim. People there were very into religion, and it was common to see people praying, guys walking around with prayer beads, or signs telling you to \u201cremember Allah\u201d. These outward signs of religion got to be\u2026 annoying. For the most part, I wasn\u2019t particularly impacted as a non-believer, but it did get to be a bit grating being surrounded by displays of a religion that I don\u2019t believe in and even oppose in some ways. Stuff that was pretty harmless started to bother me, not because it was harmful per se, but because it was wrapped up in that religion and because it reminded me that I was an outsider. \n\nI mention this experience because I think it may be similar to your experience of expressions of religion in the US. The little things remind you of the big things, and the larger issues you have with Christianity and religion in general. That said, I would encourage you to pick your battles, both to avoid unnecessary conflict and to save yourself from getting worked up over any and every expression of religiosity. You may not agree even with someone saying \u201cthank God,\u201d for example, but is it worth getting worked up over? For all the evils associated with religion, this seems pretty minor. If I were you I would spend my time and emotional energy worrying about the bigger problems, and try to let these annoyances roll off your back.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3d9nwc",
                    "author": "LittleCrab9076",
                    "body": "I believe his parents specifically asked people to pray for their son.  \nFurthermore, there\u2019s been amazing outpouring of gratitude and praise for the trainers who saved his life.  There\u2019s a current petition going around to nominate one of the trainers for the hall of fame.  The hospital and staff have also been acknowledged numerous times.\nI don\u2019t know why you are focusing on such a small thing",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3dgz60",
                    "author": "OutsideCreativ",
                    "body": "If you don't want to pray for damar... don't pray for damar...",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3drhby",
                    "author": "obeythelaw2020",
                    "body": "Full disclaimer:  I\u2019m an atheist and have been for about 20 years.  The one question I never see asked and answered and I\u2019ll use the Damar situation as an example, is what if he had died?  Or suffered inoperable brain damage that left him a vegetable?  Does the religious person say that God killed him?  Or do they say that the medical staff didn\u2019t do everything they could for him or that the hospital was negligent in their care?",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3dsq5n",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "I guess I'm not seeing where the tough question is, at least not from a non-religious perspective. Do we *generally* blame doctors if their patient doesn't make it? Not generally, I don't think. But sure, there are plenty of medical lawsuits and such, but I'm sure some, if not many, are just driven by people being upset to lose their loved ones. But I feel like we understand pretty well that deaths due to injury are usually because the injury was too severe and there was nothing we could do. \n\nEither way, what's the point? What is the grander point you're making here?",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j3drhby"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3e1nm2",
                    "author": "EntryEven",
                    "body": "I\u2019m gonna go out on a limb here and say he probably appreciates it.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ekchn",
                    "author": "chickenlittle53",
                    "body": "This honestly just comes across as a \"I hate religion post\" under the guise of football. Who cares thar someone tweeted to pray for someone. People have private lives and can post on social media dude lol. You acting like they are \"demanding\" something makes you come across as extremely irrational. A Twitter post to please pray for someone is in no way some threat dude like wtf?\n\nWe get it, you don't like religion. People can pray and thank multiple things dude. Your reaction seems very excessive tbh. Getting upset that someone said pray/and support someone that nearly died. Even thr doctors could be religious. Point is, have you considered you're overreacting? Maybe it's because I'm out of my teen years for some time now, but I don't think I have gotten upset over Twitter in quite some time. Especially over people I don't know and them tweeting to support someone and/bring awareness to something intended to be positive in their eyes.\n\nIt's like you're looking for a reason to be mad which is sad. Why we just be happy he made a recovery and let folks live their lives peacefully if they are religious. You are disrespecting his family even just because you don't share the same beliefs of which they thanked doctors as well btw. Just comes across as being a negative person looking for bad and reason to complain about things even intended positively by folks. \n\nThat's sad tbh. I hope you can learn to not get worked up over a Twitter post meant quite deliberately to be positive whether you're religious or not.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3exfsh",
                    "author": "RoboTaco_",
                    "body": "OP I have been critical of the hypocrisy as well but different reasons. \n\nNFL players sustain brain injuries and physical disabilities. They don\u2019t suspend games. This is fine. \n\nNFL players physically and/or sexually assault women. They don\u2019t suspend games. This is fine. \n\nNFL players commit murder. They don\u2019t suspend games. This is fine. \n\nNFL players commit suicide and suffered from brain trauma. They don\u2019t suspend games. This is fine. \n\nOne player has a cardiac arrest on the field and they are acting like this is the most traumatizing event the franchise has faced. \n\nThis is ridiculous.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3fi6df",
                    "author": "colt707",
                    "body": "Well first off to deeply religious people, what those people did doesn\u2019t matter because God either wanted that person to die or live. In their eyes if he dies there was nothing that could have been done because you can\u2019t overpower something that\u2019s all powerful. \n\nAs for the excessive part, how many people have a family member or friend go through something and post asking for people to pray for them? The answer is a lot. This just incident happened on national prime time TV in one of the biggest games of this season, everyone saw it and everyone knew immediately it was serious.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3fkpiz",
                    "author": "Chase_Dank",
                    "body": "Look I'm not religious but if you're an American football fan, you just gotta accept that it comes with Jesus as a package deal. It's just a part of the culture of the sport. I don't know if we need to look into it any deeper than that. Besides, there's no reason to assume those who prayed for Damar didn't also tangibly help. I'm sure that a great many Christians (and members of other faiths) who prayed for Damar also donated to his toy drive. I'm sure that plenty of atheists and agnostics who pointed out that praying \"doesn't do anything\" and distracts from tangible action still managed to not help in any way whatsoever. As hypocritical and bankrupt as many Christians can be, I have to admit that I've come across plenty genuine ones, who understand that \"faith without works is dead.\"\n\nIt is not disrespectful to medical staff to appeal to God in a moment like this. People's brains are big enough to hold two ideas at the same time. A person can have tremendous respect for the expertise, professionalism and dedication of the medical personnel, while also knowing that some element of what decides life or death in these moments is beyond the control of said professionals. Call it luck, confounding medical risk factors, God's grace, whatever you want to call it. Those same professionals could have received that same training, performed their duties just as skillfully, and Damar could have died. It's a relfection on the fragility of life. It's the humility of recognizing that humans (even medical professionals) do not have ultimate authority over life and death. Some people put \"God\" in that space.\n\nThis is just a really \\*weird\\* take. Try to look at it without this overpowering negative prejudice against anything to do with religion. You are being needlessly uncharitable towards people of faith, and patently inventing explanations for observed behavior that undergird your preconceived notions of the worst versions of religious faith. You can be non religious and also chill out a bit and not get pissed off every time you're reminded that some people are religious.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3flci4",
                    "author": "DependentDifferent30",
                    "body": "Wow - 10,000 words? \nLet\u2019s break it down to 12 words: God is good. God is great. He is here. He is King.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3guh29",
                    "author": "3232FFFabc",
                    "body": "Easy there, big fellow.  I\u2019ve only heard massive accolades on the medical care.  Both the quick thinking trainer on the field and at the hospital.  Don\u2019t get your panties in a wad for peoples shared religion to help them cope with this near tragedy.  And note Hamlin himself is deeply religious who asked for their prayers and yet you want to deny that?",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3gv4sh",
                    "author": "Outrageous_Care_1308",
                    "body": "I profoundly disagree with your commentary. As someone who is atheist, I felt in no way compelled to follow suit in prayer, not did I feel he was forcing any type of religion on anybody else. Stop trying to demonize a religion. If this were Islam and a call to worship, or tefillah, or bhuddist prayer it would be championed and welcomed. Identity politics has ruined us",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3gyic0",
                    "author": "iNeed4Sleep",
                    "body": "I think you're blowing it out of proportion and very much like muyamable said earlier,  \n\n\" To me this phrase is more shorthand for keeping him in your thoughts and whatnot. I think framing this as a \"demand that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs\" is not accurate.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105qyvz",
                    "author": "malachai926",
                    "body": "A quick recap of the Damar Hamlin incident for those out of the loop: Damar Hamlin was playing in an NFL game last Monday and was involved in a tackle where he took a fairly significant blow to the chest. Moments later, after getting on his feet, he collapsed back to the ground, completely unresponsive. We learned later that his heart actually stopped beating and he had stopped breathing, and medical personnel had to rush to his side and administer CPR and use a defibrillator right there on the field to get his heart beating again. An ambulance was also driven directly onto the field, which is either extremely rare in the NFL or has never actually happened in the NFL's history (even serious injuries usually just involve a small cart that drives the guy off the field and to an awaiting ambulance if necessary). This ultimately deeply, deeply shook everyone involved: the players, the fans, the sports network covering everything on live television. It's probably the grimmest sports coverage I've ever seen in my 38 years of sports fandom.\n\nThe response to all of this was a strongly religious one. An analyst on ESPN delivered a prayer to God on camera, praying for his well-being. The NFL's chief twitter account changed their profile picture to read \"pray for Damar\", as did the twitter accounts of every NFL team, I believe. Social media, in general, was abuzz with requests to \"pray for Damar\", and many players specifically requested prayers from all of us on behalf of Damar.\n\nThe good news in all of this is that Damar has, at this point, recovered enough to be off oxygen and is awake and speaking to people. Barring some completely unforeseen circumstance at this point, it sounds like he's going to be okay. He did not suffer any neurological damage and should be able to live a normal life, though whether that includes football remains to be seen. Regardless, he seems to have pulled through.\n\nAs I said, my three main criticisms of this response are that it was excessive, that it was hypocritical, and that it was disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.\n\n**Excessive:** this is the best word I can think of to describe the fact that the reaction was not just a personal expression of religion but a demand that everyone else be religious in response to this also. It is one thing to pray for a player; it is another to demand that everyone else do it too. Granted, it wasn't explicitly a call for everyone to exhibit *Christian* behaviors, but this is clearly a request to pray to the Abrahamic God who we interpret as having the ability to intercede in our affairs and thus might help Damar heal better or might help medical personnel be smarter or more adept at their jobs as they do the life-saving work of treating Damar's injury. Anyone who has religious beliefs that do NOT involve an intercessory God are thus being asked to do something that 1) is pointless 2) violates their own belief system. This also, obviously, extends to people who don't believe in any gods in the first place.\n\nAnd why should this matter? I think of the response to Damar's injury like a bucket that you can choose to fill with anything, but the bucket is of limited size and so you can only choose to fill it with so much. If you choose to fill it with praying for Damar, and it turned out that there was no god and that prayer is an exercise in futility, this is an option that achieved nothing. There were other alternatives on the table, the best one (in my opinion) being Damar's toy drive which raised millions of dollars in the aftermath of his injury. And what a fantastic way to show your support for the player: donating to his cause, AND giving kids in need a bit of joy in their lives. Could a person do both? Sure, they could. But like I said, that bucket doesn't have unlimited size, and there are more than enough people out there who satisfy their urge to \"do something for Damar\" by praying for him and thus forego any of the more tangible actions that could have really made a difference in someone's life.\n\nMore than anything, it was a response to a tragedy that demanded that people follow a very specific set of religious beliefs, which is an extremely inappropriate thing to do in response to a crisis.\n\n**Hypocritical:** the NFL community is often outspoken about how they want to keep politics out of football. Read up on Colin Kaepernick to learn pretty much everything you need to know about how NFL fans feel when a player does something political. \"Shut up and play\" was a sentiment expressed by a LOT of NFL fans in response to Colin Kaepernick trying to highlight racial injustice in the league and in the United States in general. Is \"religion\" politics? I honestly don't see why it shouldn't be, considering how many political issues are so heavily influenced by religion (abortion, gay marriage, trans rights, even arguably our healthcare spending / programs when we talk about our obligations to help others as stated by our religious beliefs). I really wouldn't understand how a person could successfully argue that politics should have nothing to do with sports and that players should just shut up and play and just focus 100% on the sport and the entertainment value of it all, but if they do anything to promote their own religious beliefs, that is not only totally fine, it is extremely commendable of them to have done so. This is exactly what the NFL community has done, and I find it to be very, very hypocritical.\n\n**Disrespectful to medical staff:** let's be really clear about something: the medical staff are the ones who saved his life. The personnel that administered CPR, used the AED to restart his heart, intubated him, supplied him with oxygen as his body continued to heal, offered him whatever other care he needed while unconscious and healing...all of these things are what saved his life. Yet EVEN HIS OWN FAMILY is tweeting things like \"I am so glad that God saved his life\", with nary an acknowledgement of the people who did the actual work to save it. Their work is kind of an afterthought in the religious community. \"Let's try to make sure to remember to thank the doctors and such, but really, my primary focus here is to thank God and praise God for saving Damar.\" Frankly, if I were one of the medical personnel who saved his life, and I saw his family use their opportunity to offer a public thanks and all they say is \"thanks, God, for saving our guy Damar\", I would feel at least a little insulted by that. I would not blame anyone in the medical community for feeling that way. I know they don't need any thanks and that people do not go into medicine to heap praises upon themselves, but still, if someone saved the life of a loved one in your family, but you went and thanked someone else for the save, it's hard to view that as anything other than disrespectful to the people who did the work of saving him. It is not a \"miracle\" that he lived. He's alive because we applied known medical science to his condition, and it saved him, as it saves anyone who has similar cardiac events pretty much every minute of every day across the globe. Thank the people who studied the human body and developed methods to treat it if you want to thank someone.\n\nThis is fairly broad in scope and has a lot to discuss, so if you can, try to focus on these three points and try not to turn this into a debate on the existence of God. I think there's enough here to discuss religion's place in society and culture that we shouldn't need things to go that route. I'd also like to say that I realize this is an extremely sensitive issue on many fronts, as a lot of people do not like to openly discuss their beliefs or have them challenged, so I promise to be completely respectful in my discussions with you and ask you to extend me the same courtesy, AND extend that courtesy to anyone else you talk to in this thread.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The religious response to the Damar Hamlin incident by both the NFL and the NFL community was excessive, hypocritical, and disrespectful to the medical staff that saved his life.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105qyvz/cmv_the_religious_response_to_the_damar_hamlin/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3i2b3y",
                    "author": "The_Saracen_Slayer",
                    "body": "The difference is God being absolute authority decided to allow Damar to live, therefore why people pray and give him thanks. The medical staff are simply contingent third parties that MAY help in saving his life, but in truth they have no power beyond their medical applications. If their training failed to bring his heart back to stability, then Damar would have died. Medical staff just a means to an end (help restart heart) and not the end itself (continue living) which is not up to them\u2026otherwise we\u2019d all be immortal now",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105qyvz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "105rdxe",
                "author": "quantum_dan",
                "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3cz6u5",
                "author": "NotGnnaLie",
                "body": "If I understand, you are asking if a moral reflex (feeling bad about laughing at injured kid) is different than other senses (sight, smell, hearing, touch, etc.)\n\nYes, they are all sourced (triggered, started, eletrified?) in different sections of the brain, so this should be enough to classify as different than other senses.",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "105rdxe"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3dzkgp",
                "author": "quantum_dan",
                "body": "For neuroscience, fair point.  Is that relevant to how we reason about it in this context?\n\n...well, at least it conceivably *could* be that we should treat different \"levels\" of impression differently. !delta.  I wouldn't be able to confidently commit one way or the other, but it's at least good reason to doubt (and quite the oversight on my end).",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j3cz6u5"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3dzpfo",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NotGnnaLie ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NotGnnaLie)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-01-07",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j3dzkgp"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cbb1e",
                    "author": "Brakasus",
                    "body": ">I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.\n\nWhat comes to mind for me is that there is a universality to -red- or -loud- that there isn't to -right- and -wrong-. -Loud- as a result from hearing is something everybody who is able to hear is going to relate to. \nBut right and wrong are yet another step removed, as you need two senses to work together. One to actually perceive whatever you are thinking about (like an ear and hearing) and then the foundation that you build your judgement from (it's late at night and you think it improper to be loud at night). To me that second step just seems to wildly differ between different people.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cbtno",
                    "author": "AzazelAzure",
                    "body": "The reason why moral intuition isn't treated like a sense is because morality is taught, it isn't genetic or biological at all.  Also why objective morality cannot exist, since morality is inherently subjective.  \n\nThe issue with this logic is that morality isn't like...say...taste.   We can disagree that on whether something tastes good or not, but not that it *has* a taste.  With that, it can be easy to make the association between morality as a concept vs the ability to address morality (i.e. the 'tastes good or bad' vs 'can taste').  \n\nWith that said, you could argue this is a function of a sense.   Like we can, in a way, sense if something is immoral, but that's not a particularly accurate, in the same way we don't 'sense' a snake is dangerous, but we do know it is by seeing it and associating prior knowledge to it.  \n\nIn a less long winded way, morality is basically just the name we gave to how we expect others to behave within the internal framework of self preservation.   It isn't a way for us to experience the world in any way, it is a way to work together for our own survival",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cf5pl",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> The reason why moral intuition isn't treated like a sense is because morality is taught, it isn't genetic or biological at all.\n\nExact morals are taught, but one can find plenty of studies showing some intrinsic sense of justice in infants, for example.\n\n> We can disagree that on whether something tastes good or not, but not that it has a taste.\n\nWe certainly can disagree on that - people lose their sense of taste.  Same goes for any sense.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cbtno"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cccje",
                    "author": "Vesurel",
                    "body": "Colour is an interesting example, because we can see objects that reflect the same colours of light differently based on context. A classic example would be an optical illusion where two squares of the same colour appear to be different colours because on is contrasted with a lighter background.\n\nOut of curiosity, how do you resolve difference between two people's moral sense? \n\nIf for example two people disagree about whether two light are the same colour, we could compare the wavelenghts of light they emit and measure it objectivly.\n\nWhat's the equivilent for one person saying we should have the death penalty and one person saying we shouldn't?",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cdtzs",
                    "author": "phenix717",
                    "body": "It's possible a scientific comparison could be made, we just aren't there yet. For example, we could identify brain processes that create \"happiness\", figure out how to quantify those levels of happiness, and then if we agree to use a utilitarian framework, we could base our decisions on what maximizes happiness in the world.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cccje"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ccjxe",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": ">But I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition? It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me. But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science. Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nThere is broad agreement about sensory data. And cases with disagreement tend to be down to identifiable differences in processing of the data, not the sensory information itself. For instance, in the famous blue or gold dress illusion, everyone is receiving the same wavelengths of light, but our second order processing recognizes things like what a color fabric looks like in shadow differently.\n\nThere is not such broad agreement about moral intuition, precisely because it is, if anything a third level processing of information.\n\nWhen we get sensory information, we're receiving photons, or scent particles or pressure felt by nerve endings. The sensory data itself is just recognizing that physical input.\n\nThen our brain works to reconstruct from that raw data a picture of the world based on that- and it's actually an interesting field of study in both philosophy and science how that happens.\n\nBut when we have a moral intuition, it's not direct input from the physical world being sensed. We first have that sensory data, we see or hear information. THEN our processing makes sense of what those photons and vibrations mean and construct a model of the situation. THEN we somehow create a moral judgement based on that situation, drawing on some combination of mirror neuron reactions, social upbringing and other personal and biological sources. But the important thing is we're not at all directly sensing something, we're processing, and we're processing a couple layers deep.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cedkt",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> There is not such broad agreement about moral intuition, precisely because it is, if anything a third level processing of information.\n\nSure there is.  Essentially every human being on the planet will agree that hurting someone in what they consider to be their tribe is wrong.  The disputes arise more on how we generalize that, or don't.\n\n> But when we have a moral intuition, it's not direct input from the physical world being sensed. We first have that sensory data, we see or hear information. THEN our processing makes sense of what those photons and vibrations mean and construct a model of the situation.\n\nAs far as I've always heard, what we see is also well-established to be a model of the situation with substantial processing involved to generate an intelligible image.  Humans don't experience much without processing it, including, if I'm not mistaken...\n\n>  THEN we somehow create a moral judgement based on that situation, drawing on some combination of mirror neuron reactions, social upbringing and other personal and biological sources. \n\nExtensive heuristics based on our experience and so on.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3ccjxe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ccl6q",
                    "author": "phenix717",
                    "body": "You are confusing a sense and a feeling. A sense is something that allows you to get input from the external world, even though your interpretation of it will be relative. As such, we can hope to rely on our senses in order to learn facts about the world.\n\nFeelings don't say anything about the outside world, they only say something about how you experience things. If you think a food is gross, for example, it doesn't say anything objective about the food, it's a value judgment your brain is making. Feelings of \"wrong\" are based on the same sort of phenomenon. If morality is objective, it has to be based on facts and logic.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cdeb0",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> A sense is something that allows you to get input from the external world\n\nProprioception is a sense.  But more generally, the correspondence to the external world is an assumption we make because it holds up with experience: sight is an internal state, but it tends to correlate to certain external conditions; so does a sense of \"wrong\".\n\n> Thinking a food is gross, for example, doesn't say anything objective about the food, it's a value judgment your brain is making.\n\n\"Gross\" also doesn't have a distinct sensation; it's *strictly* a judgment.  The physical feeling of disgust is a package of sensations which may correspond, or not, to anything external.\n\n> If morality is objective, it has to be based on facts and logic.\n\nObjective morality and moral facts are (at least to the level of discourse I'm familiar with) more or less the same dispute, so that's just begging the question.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3ccl6q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cctcw",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I'd have to look it up, but basically the issue lies in the fact that morality is not one thing, it's like five different things, and different people prioritize those differently. I wanna say they are: Reciprocity, Respect for Authority, Care, Loyalty, and Purity. However, clearly these things can be interpreted in a LOT of different ways, hence, people arguing about ethics. Not to say it's impossible to quantify those, but there it is.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ccwbj",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me\n\nIt doesn't function like a sense at all. With senses we have sensory receptors that respond to specific stimuli and send signals to the brain that are then processed to provide what we consider perception. This is not how \"intuition\" works at all.\n\nRegardless of the culture or era you grow up in, if you touch something hot you're going to feel a burning sensation. But culture can greatly impact our moral intuition. When and how we grew up will impact our moral intuition. Today most people find slavery immoral. That wasn't always the case. Moral intuition does not function like a sense.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ce381",
                    "author": "MeanderingDuck",
                    "body": "How does moral intuition function like a sense? Our sensory organs (when functioning properly) respond to specific, measurable stimuli that (in principle) anyone can observe. It\u2019s taking in external (to the brain) information. There is no such corollary when it comes to morality, no equivalent to \u2018sensory inputs\u2019.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cg0g4",
                    "author": "ShappaDappaDingDong",
                    "body": "I guess everything can kind of be viewed as a black box with input and output - including senses and morality. It is just that to us, it is seemingly easier to understand what parts of those inputs and outputs are for the senses - it is more concrete. But for morality, it is seemingly more vague and hard to grasp.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3ce381"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cfcqu",
                    "author": "Glory2Hypnotoad",
                    "body": "I would argue that moral intuition is far less like a sense and more like an emotion. I think it's telling that moral institutions align strongly with things we emotionally want to be true. And if we think about how moral intuitions work, it would lead to some pretty absurd results if we tested senses like sight and hearing the same way. For example, there's no such thing as an empirical claim that's too offensive to be true.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ch10e",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> And if we think about how moral intuitions work, it would lead to some pretty absurd results if we tested senses like sight and hearing the same way. For example, there's no such thing as an empirical claim that's too offensive to be true.\n\nWhy would we assume that offensiveness is a criterion of *truth*?  We don't assume that lights that hurt our eyes therefore don't exist.  Offensiveness, if treating moral intuitions as a sense, would be evidence of... offensiveness, much like red is evidence of red (and then we do the work to correlate that to a wavelength and so on).",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cfcqu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cfxa6",
                    "author": "Deft_one",
                    "body": "> Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?\n\nHow do you measure, objectively, how \"wrong\" something is?\n\nAnd does moral subjectivity preclude the existence of such a scale? I would argue that it does (as opposed to measuring wavelengths, which have objective measures).\n\nI guess it comes down to the idea that you can't really measure subjective things.\n\nE.g., I can't tell you \"how much\" more I like one band over another",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cib64",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> How do you measure, objectively, how \"wrong\" something is?\n\nHow do you measure objectively how red something is?  First you look across humans to identify consistent - never strictly universal - correlations with physical phenomena, then you use that as the criterion.  There are certainly equally broad correlations with basic phenomena, like \"hurting my friend\".\n\n> And does moral subjectivity preclude the existence of such a scale? I would argue that it does (as opposed to measuring wavelengths, which have objective measures). I guess it comes down to the idea that you can't really measure subjective things.\n\nIt being uncorrelated to anything objective is the matter in dispute.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cfxa6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3chzdy",
                    "author": "Alien_invader44",
                    "body": "A common example agaisnt moral intuition is incest.(assume consenting adults). Stop giggiling in the back. Incest is generally considered morally wrong. But in cases where there is no reproduction causing genetic issues, why? Normally we consider sexual activity between consenting adults to be fine.\n\nIt's hard to avoid the conclusion that it's because we find it disgusting. But something being disgusting doesnt make it wrong. Otherwise we are no better than toddlers declaring that peas are bad. \n\nBut this is kind of what we do. \n\nSo the test for moral intuition would be. If incest is wrong, justify why. If you cant do that without your answer essentially being \"because its icky\" then our moral intuition is no better than a personal preference like preferring vanilla ice cream.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cla21",
                    "author": "Km15u",
                    "body": "At least for me moral expressivism seems to be the best explanation of morality.\n\n https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressivism\n\nWhen I say killing people is bad, I\u2019m saying I don\u2019t like the action of killing people, it goes against my conscience. Idk why this isn\u2019t enough for people. Why do you need some outside force or structure to justify your own beliefs. Yes it\u2019s an opinion not a fact, so what? I don\u2019t want to live in a world where people murder each other without consequence so I will fight for laws which prohibit it. Why do I need some external validation to do that\n\nIt is a sense, just like you sense when you are angry or upset.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cmkc8",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> Why do you need some outside force or structure to justify your own beliefs.\n\nI personally don't - I am entirely comfortable with, for lack of a better term and not meaning it in a technical sense, moral perspectivism.  What I'm posting about here is an interesting factual claim that might require me to revise my stance, if it holds up.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3cla21"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3clnq0",
                    "author": "ReOsIr10",
                    "body": "The \"feel\" in \"feel that something is wrong\" is different than the \"feel\" in feel my hands in front of me. The former means something along the lines of \"to be aware of by instinct or inference; to believe or think\", while the latter means \"to perceive by a physical sensation coming from discrete end organs (as of the skin or muscles)\". Just because they use the same verb doesn't mean they are meaningfully similar experiences. Otherwise any belief would be a \"sense\", given that one can always say \"I feel the earth is flat\".",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3cmbe9",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "> The former means something along the lines of \"to be aware of by instinct or inference; to believe or think\" ... Otherwise any belief would be a \"sense\", given that one can always say \"I feel the earth is flat\".\n\nThere are physical sensations associated with moral intuition that are not associated with general belief.  No, it's not the same style of \"feeling\" as, say, touch... but what about a sense like just \"knowing\" where my hands are?  I think these are similar sensations.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3clnq0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "105rdxe",
                    "author": "quantum_dan",
                    "body": "**Edit: ambiguous phrasing** I don't know of an unambiguous word for what I'm trying to say here, but \"moral intuition\" here refers to the immediate, *prima facie* sense of right/wrong, not more abstract considerations like \"is so-and-so broad category of action wrong?\".  I'm aware that it's commonly used to mean the latter, but I don't know of a better word for it.  Here, it's \"the immediate sense that attacking my friend over there is wrong\".\n\n(Edit: I will plan to be back in a few hours.)\n\n(I think I saw this argument somewhere, but I can't remember where.)\n\nIn reasoning about the existence of moral truths, a few points tend to get brought up, at least in the non-academic contexts I'm familiar with.  One sees the argument that there's no tie to reality, so it's just quibbling about definitions; that different people have different views with no way to decide which is correct; arguments are criticized for just trying to explaining or make coherent our moral intuitions; the point gets brought up that morality is evolved for the benefit of the group; and so on.  I've made a few of these arguments myself, I think, and I personally am generally inclined against absolute morality.\n\nBut I've seen an interesting point here: what is moral intuition?  It seems to function like a sense; it's not that different to feel that something is wrong and to feel that my hands are in front of me.  But the project of \"explaining and making coherent our sensory inputs\" isn't dismissed as a domain of knowledge; it's actually well-regarded, and often called science.  Like moral intuition, the (rest of) our senses are evolved, we sometimes disagree (whether by hallucinations or just different perspectives), and so on.\n\nAll that to say: I don't see a fundamental reason to privilege other senses above moral intuition.  The experience of, say, \"red\" is certainly something very specific to our experience, but we can still reason objectively about redness (correlate it to a wavelength, and so on), even if the \"red\" part itself says nothing about reality as such.  Why should we treat the experience of \"wrong\" any different?  It's notable that dominant theories do agree fairly broadly on many points, but differ largely on the explanation; this is not unheard of even in the physical sciences.\n\nIn short: since there are facts about the human experience and about our moral intuition just as there are about our eyesight, it seems to make sense that we can objectively reason about that sense the same as any other.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in reasoning about the possibility of objective morality, it doesn't make sense to treat moral intuition differently from (other) senses.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/105rdxe/cmv_in_reasoning_about_the_possibility_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ea8qv",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "I disagree that this moral \"intuition\" is *prima facie*, I think it's *post hoc* based on some moral idea that we have but are unable to articulate or justify. \n\nIf you just think that attacking your friend is wrong, but you don't know why then either there is no reason or there is some flaw in your reasoning. You could argue anything from this position with no method of verification. I don't think we should accept this as a valid moral proposition.",
                    "date": "2023-01-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "105rdxe"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "106p61n",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                "date": "2023-01-08",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3htndi",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": "Imagine you build a race car and say \"cars need to go fast, so to cut on weight we remove breaks because all they do is make car slower.\" That's a terrible idea. \n\nConservativism is breaks that slows the progress enough that we have time to see outcome of progressive policy and if necessary course correct if we are heading towards the wall. They take old, tested and proven solutions where as progressives try new things. Both are needed and they should play nice together.",
                "date": "2023-01-08",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": "106p61n"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3i4qqy",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "\u0394\nThank you, that analogy really makes a lot of sense to me.\nConservatives are the brakes on the car of society, used to slow  the  vehicledown when it\u2019s getting too fast.",
                "date": "2023-01-08",
                "score": 9,
                "parent_id": "j3htndi"
            },
            {
                "id": "j3i4vu3",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Z7-852 ([155\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Z7-852)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-01-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j3i4qqy"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hqjn3",
                    "author": "Negative-Squirrel81",
                    "body": "Not all changes are for the better, and we see lines of what constitutes \"conservative\" to also be in a state a flux.\n\nFor example, I'm seeing lots of very liberal people pushing back against AI art, even though it represents a significant and most probably unstoppable shift in how we interact with the visual arts. Does this place them in the \"conservatism\" camp?",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3htxar",
                    "author": "ReligionOfPease",
                    "body": "> I'm seeing lots of very liberal people pushing back against AI art\n\nAre you, though? how do you know the political ideology of these *lots* of people that are \"pushing back against AI art\"?",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3hqjn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hra4o",
                    "author": "Ok-Future-5257",
                    "body": "I'm sure that in the 1930s, some Germans missed the good old days of non-fascist Germany.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hscz6",
                    "author": "Cryonaut555",
                    "body": "Nazi Germany is one of very few exceptions throughout history, especially modern history where the past (Weimar) was better than the present (fascist).\n\nWe romanticize the past but it was a terrible place.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j3hra4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hreo8",
                    "author": "BlowjobPete",
                    "body": "Conservatives don't literally want to maintain all parts of previous culture, just the ones they consider the most essential or to be the best lessons learned. As such, they are not usually placed in opposition to all societal change, just change relative to the factors they consider foundational or essential to their country.\n\nIn the case of modern-day western conservatism in North America and Europe the 'conservation' aspect is usually some kind of religious doctrine (bible) and/or the precepts under which the country was founded. Hence the consistent reference and deference to the constitution in the USA or the use of the old name 'Tory' in British parliamentary societies referencing the conservative social values party from the 19th century.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 18,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hsqrx",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "But from what I understand, culture is a result of material circumstances.\nFor example, if some people think that a particular kind of food is part of their culture, it\u2019s probably because their ancestors centuries ago were able to get that kind of food and it became part of the culture because it was the only way they could survive.\nBut as they get access to more and different varieties, it might not be necessary to continue to eat that particular staple.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j3hreo8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hri3n",
                    "author": "PhoenixxFeathers",
                    "body": "I mean it makes perfect sense - it just isn't a good ideology for progress.  \n\nPeople, by and large, don't generally like change. Conservativism is just that innate human desire for stability and contentedness put into practice.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hs6zi",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "Don't you think it's necessary though?\n\nWhat if you had a group that thought that every idea was great.\n\nWant to abolish the police? great\n\nWant to release all prisoners? great\n\nWant to 100% redistribute all wealth? great\n\nAt some point you need an opposing force going \"wait a minute that is a terrible idea, let's consider why we have police, prisons and our economic system to begin with\".",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "j3hri3n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hvvmw",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "Edmund Burke, the 18th-century political philosopher regarded as the father of conservatism, described it as:\n\n\u201cAn approach to human affairs which mistrusts both *a priori* reasoning and revolution, preferring to put its trust in experience and in the gradual improvement of tried and tested arrangements.\"\n\nIn other words, classical conservatism doesn\u2019t necessarily believe change is bad. Instead, it believes that change should be instituted after careful consideration, rather than revolutionary fervor. It should also be based off of pragmatic observation of human nature (for better or worse), instead of utopian ideals.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3icc0z",
                    "author": "TechGuyBloke",
                    "body": ">\u201cAn approach to human affairs which mistrusts both *a priori* reasoning and revolution...\n\nMistrust of the intellect is a key element of conservatism.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "j3hvvmw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hy0ul",
                    "author": "BambiTheMurderer",
                    "body": "I don't know any conservatives that look back at the 1800s with fondness, most seem to look back at 1920-1990 with fondness from what I can tell and considering you could afford a house on a single income with no education even if you were actively discriminated against via Jim Crow and just saved a little longer instead of getting a loan and now two people working full time with education can barely afford one I think there's good reason for it. \n\nIf people look back at now with fondness it's only because things get worse and they just don't have the earlier time as a true reference due to media and not being alive. That said it does look like things will get worse. \n\nAlso a lot of the bad parts of history get memory holed. Like the massive amount of overdoses, teen suicides, financial struggles etc. will probably be forgotten if a world war breaks out and completely topples the world as we know it.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3hyi3q",
                    "author": "BitchyWitchy68",
                    "body": "Conservatives just fight any change. The only constant in human civilization is change, which means conservatives always lose. They can only delay it and cause damage while they do. They might not like my opinion, but the historical record is clear. Periods of rapid change followed by a conservative backlash, followed by another period of rapid change. Major change from 2000 to 2016.. conservative backlash 2016-? , probably major change again 2024-?\u2026they just need to get the F over it.  Hopefully enough of them die before 2024 that it flips the election. If not 2024 than 2028 at the latest.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3i4843",
                    "author": "rinchen11",
                    "body": "Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense as the only ideology, but it make sense because of the existence of Progressivism.\n\nIt doesn\u2019t make sense to have a brake on something that does not move at all. However it makes sense with movable things, because when something moves it has inherently risk of moving too fast.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3i5ho0",
                    "author": "GunOfSod",
                    "body": "If you had a family, do you think you'd be better off in the 1970's, or today?",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3i5pme",
                    "author": "AloysiusC",
                    "body": "By the same argument, being progressive doesn't make sense because it assumes that ostensibly nothing is worth conserving and therefore everything should be dismantled. \n\nThe key is not in being one or the other but in knowing when to do what. It's obvious that progress and improvement are something to strive for but it's just as obvious that not every kind of change is necessarily for the better simply because the *intention* is improvement. \n\nThe only reason to completely abandon conservatism is if you genuinely believe that *any* kind of change is *always* an improvement and that that will never change. That's a very hard sell.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3icvzk",
                    "author": "Kakamile",
                    "body": ">The only reason to completely abandon conservatism is if you genuinely believe that any kind of change is always an improvement and that that will never change\n\nOr if you already have debate within the progressive faction of whether to change this or that. Conservation for the sake of conservation can be a bit redundant, and more often frames ideas on \"don't change A\" rather than \"you can convert B but A should stay.\"",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j3i5pme"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3i709g",
                    "author": "Obvious_Flamingo3",
                    "body": "We only seem to consider it conservatism when they are against GOOD social change. \n\nWould you consider people who were anti Hitler in the 1930s conservative? They would have been against one of the biggest social changes at the time.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ibfub",
                    "author": "Kakamile",
                    "body": "That question would have to be asked within Germany, and Hitler did wax on about nostalgic narratives, so some of it could be conservative yes? Conservative tends to mean older, decades older values. Not like 2023 Tories wanting to go back to 2020 lockdowns.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j3i709g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ieadj",
                    "author": "warmbookworm",
                    "body": "Are we talking about moral conservatives? economic conservatives? Political conservatives?\n\nThe literal definition of the word conservative?",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ihcdn",
                    "author": "warmbookworm",
                    "body": "For me, conservativism, or at least my own stance, isn't about \"preserving tradition\", necessarily. \n\nThis is how I see it. Take swimming for example. Or Piano. Or pretty much any skill.\n\nThere are rules to what you should and shouldn't do. The purpose of those rules isn't just to follow what has always been done, rather, it's there to make you perform at a higher level.\n\nYou don't have to swim with an early vertical forearm in a streamline position etc, but you'll just be much slower and less efficient in the water.\n\nYou don't have to follow basic musical harmony and counterpoint, but your atonal compositions will just sound like crap. \n\nFundamentally speaking, you are far more likely to come up with a bad idea than a good one. If you imagine a bunch of monkeys typing, it would take them forever to randomly type in a way that miraculously wrote a book that makes sense, right?\n\nNow imagine we had some rules for the monkeys typing; for example, they have to type real words or else it wouldn't work. Now, the chances of them actually typing something that makes sense is significantly increased, even if it's still small.\n\nIf we add even more rules about grammar and things like that, the chances get improved even more.\n\n\n**rules result in a much higher likelihood of a good result than no rules, assuming the rules are somewhat decent**.\n\nI am not against refining and optimizing rules so that they are better; if we, through learning about fluid dynamics and biology, found better ways than our current meta for swimming so that swimmers can swim even faster, I'm totally on board with learning that new rule.\n\nWhat I am against, is **removing rules for the sake of freedom**.\n\nAgain, I should have demonstrated above that pure freedom results in bad outcomes far more than good ones. \n\nYou can't just say \"Oh, I don't want Bob to feel bad because he can't swim properly, and I don't want Ally or Adrian to feel bad either, so let's just scrap all of those rules and just let people swim however they want!\"\n\nYeah, but like, you just end up with an objectively worse swim team who will be much slower.\n\nYou're actually rewinding progress, not moving it forward.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3jawqv",
                    "author": "Kakamile",
                    "body": "If you're arguing against progress/forward, then they actually are for rules.\n\nIt's libertarianism/anarchism that is no-rule. Progressive is for rule change. What is conservatism for?",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j3ihcdn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3ijbtf",
                    "author": "TechGuyBloke",
                    "body": "What anti-progressive conservatives never seem to acknowledge is that all the things that they value and defend were once new initiatives that, when first introduced, would have been obstructed by their anti-progressive conservative counterparts at the time.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3imxcn",
                    "author": "Spanglertastic",
                    "body": "Conservatism is easy to understand as it is merely selfishness and tribal identity. It is rooted on the belief that if society is working out just fine for them personally, then we should do everything we can to preserve those personal benefits. \n\nThe only traditions that conservatives seek to preserve are the ones that they perceive benefit themselves and members of their group.  Which is why you overwhelmingly find conservatives to be members of one or more privileged groups. No one is trying to conserve an injustice to which they feel they are subject. Slave masters were conservative on the subject of slavery, slaves were not. \n\nA good example of this can be found in this thread. A poster was claiming that the left was pushing marijuana legalization too quickly and that we needed 20 years of decriminalization to study before we should have thought about legalization. Yet you will never find conservatives pushing the same 20 year requirement for permitlesss firearm carry laws which have been expanding far quicker than marijuana legalization. That is because the conservatives perceive that traditional gun laws are not worth treating slowly because it impacts them.\n\nIf you do some searching, you'll  find scientific studies have found one of the big differences between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives tend to have far lower levels of out-of-group empathy.  People who feel empathy towards others are willing to relinquish some of their own advantages to alleviate suffering that other groups are experiencing. People who don't feel empathy won't. Conservatives don't care that real actual people might be suffering for those 20 years before legalization, they just want to use those 20 years to make sure there is no negative impact to them personally.\n\nThere are plenty of other examples. I'd suggest reading \"The only moral abortion is my abortion\"  which describes how conservative women justify their own choices, while still clinging to the moral superiority to cast other woman as sinful sluts.  You can look at conservatives like Dick Cheney who was anti-LGBT until his own daughter came out as a lesbian. How Evangelicals claimed that personal sexual conduct mattered with Clinton but abandoned that tradition for Trump.\n\nBasically, Conservatism is a sense of entitlement to privileges that one didn't earn combined with a deficit of caring for people who are not in your tribe.  It comes down to \"don't change anything that benefits me\".",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3lrt87",
                    "author": "Fastlly",
                    "body": "L take",
                    "date": "2023-01-09",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j3imxcn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3jjdyd",
                    "author": "libertysailor",
                    "body": "Conservatism doesn\u2019t mean the opposition to all change.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "106p61n",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "In every era, there have been people who look back on the previous era as a time when people were more civilised and embodied the values that they deem important., Modern conservatives seem to look back on the 19th and early 20th centuries with fondness, but I expect that in the future people will look back at the 21st-century in the same way, like How Jane Austen in her day was considered controversial and radical, but now she\u2019s used as an example of what  18th century life was like.\nalso, how long does something have to be done before it\u2019s considered part of a peoples culture and is worth preserving, I think culture is a result of material circumstances so it makes sense that those circumstances change, so too does the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-01-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV:Conservatism as an ideology doesn\u2019t make sense",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/106p61n/cmvconservatism_as_an_ideology_doesnt_make_sense/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j3m1isz",
                    "author": "Maximum-Country-149",
                    "body": "You know what?\n\nYou're right.\n\nConservatism as *an* ideology doesn't make a whole lot of sense.\n\nBut the thing is, it isn't *an* ideology, singular. The conservative-liberal dichotomy exists as a way to qualify various political positions in an intuitive way, not to describe two all-encompassing ideologies that run the country.\n\nWhich is where your logic sort of falls apart. Someone who votes conservative does not oppose change for the sake of opposing change, much the same way someone who votes liberal does not encourage change for the sake of encouraging change. Rather, they vote in support of certain ideals, which suggest either that a change is necessary or that it is not. The \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" labels describe their votes, not necessarily the reasoning behind them.\n\nThis makes the \"conservative\" and \"liberal\" labels somewhat context-sensitive; what is a conservative opinion today was liberal yesterday, when it wasn't in effect, and attempts at regression in the modern era that we'd label liberal could easily have been taken as conservative back in the day.\n\nTo give an example, let's have a look at gun control. The liberal positions here would be the ones that represent an opposition to the current status quo; generally, that means passing *more* laws to restrict the sale and usage of firearms. There are many reasons why they might want to do this, ranging from asinine to intellectual. In contrast, the conservative positions are in support of the current status quo; that means not allowing more laws to pass that restrict the sale and usage of firearms. The reasoning here is also diverse, ranging from uninformed blatherings to staunch individualism.\n\nAnd then healthcare. Advocates for reform vote liberal on this, pushing for an overhaul into a system with a different paradigm, while voting conservative means leaving things as they are (usually on the grounds that the alternatives are worse).\n\nAnd so on and so forth. Since the people that vote conservative on many issues tend to have a lot of things in common, as do the people that vote liberal, it's very easy to view both as monolithic, but that's not a great way to approach politics.",
                    "date": "2023-01-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "106p61n"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10kn55f",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                "date": "2023-01-24",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j5rwygy",
                "author": "dukeimre",
                "body": "There are two ways to approach doing something about the fact that women get more dates than men, and there are increasing numbers of men struggling to find relationships.\n\n1. Inequality/fairness-centered. \"It's unfair that women have **more** than men.\" \"We need to make things **more fair**.\" In extreme forms, this could even involve looking for someone to blame for this perceived **injustice** \\- \"alpha males\", or evolutionary psychology, or feminists. \n2. Utilitarian perspective. \"People, particularly men, are lonelier now than in the past. This is sad. Can we work to address the problem?\" This approach involves noticing when life has gotten worse for some portion of society and wanting to fix that.\n\nPerspective #1 might lead someone to try to reduce womens' choice, or shame them, in order to help men. I won't try to convince you to adopt perspective #1.\n\nBut perspective #2 is something any feminist should support. We should all want to help people, men or women. Right now, for example, many women face sexual harassment and violence, toxic gender roles, etc. We should help them by making our society more feminist. Likewise, many men face toxic ideas about masculinity (e.g., boys grow up being shamed for crying or talking about their feelings or not having enough sex or being queer or experiencing sexual violence). We should help them, too!\n\nAnd similarly, if an increasing number of men are lonely, we should seek to understand why and how we can address that loneliness. Not by shaming or harming women, of course! Both men *and* women are human beings who deserve our care.",
                "date": "2023-01-24",
                "score": 19,
                "parent_id": "10kn55f"
            },
            {
                "id": "j5rxdpe",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "!delta I do think many men face toxic ideas about masculinity. We should help them. \n\nBut so far the help I see doesn't seem like there's any solution that would not include putting some sort of extra burden on women. \n\nAlso I'm not a feminist but whatever. Not because I don't believe in equality but because no one can really define what it is. But I'm not gonna be hung up on this word",
                "date": "2023-01-24",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": "j5rwygy"
            },
            {
                "id": "j5rxiny",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dukeimre ([7\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/dukeimre)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-01-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j5rxdpe"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rov4d",
                    "author": "zurgempire",
                    "body": "\n\n>Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nAren't they both already \"liberated\"?",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rpcp8",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Not really. For both genders. there is still double standards. I do think incels take it to far and act like there's a significant amount of women who are shallow and only want men who are six feet. However. It is much socially acceptable for women to say \"I want a tall handsome man, who make me swoon\" then it is for a man to say \"I want a thin beautiful woman who is so hot\". \n\nAnd no, this is not me saying women don't face double standards. that's why I say I like the liberation of women. I like that societies in the west at least are moving towards not slut shaming women. However. There is also a rise in those who do want to slut shame women, all because men can't get what they want",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "j5rov4d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rp6mo",
                    "author": "canadian12371",
                    "body": "As a man, I think women have an easier time finding people to fuck them. \n\nIn terms of relationships, in this day and age, both sexes are pretty down bad in the gutter.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 41,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rqwy7",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I mean sure maybe. But that's not really central to my view. I don't care who has it easier and who doesn't. Nothing should be changed. We shouldn't have to encourage women to stay monogamous because poor men will be single. As long as there is no Lying, no one has to be monogamous.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j5rp6mo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rr11l",
                    "author": "pizzaplanetvibes",
                    "body": "I mean I want to change your view that it\u2019s easier for women to find someone interested in dating. I think that\u2019s a mighty assumption to make. Single mothers? Women who are disabled? Women who are not peoples idea of beauty? Gay women? Plenty of men get dates/sex too. It\u2019s about determination, respect, what are you looking for, attractiveness.\n\nI\u2019ve really only seen this \u201cwomen have it easer, men have it so much harder\u201d in incel forums. Not calling you that OP, just saying. Do some women have it easier? Yes. Comparative to who though? \n\nI heard something today that stuck with me \u201ccomparison is the death of joy\u201d. If you compare your lot in life to another\u2019s, you will miss out on all the joy waiting for you in your own life. So yeah that attractive influencer has men in her DMs constantly while you\u2019re sitting on empty tinder message box for month. But not everyone is looking for super model Sandra. Sometimes people want Down to Earth Eddy/Edith. It\u2019s easier to blame women (even if you think you\u2019re not you kinda are). \n\nAs for the rest of your argument, I am having a hard time understanding what you\u2019re arguing for exactly. I think this argument is almost a facade for some not so friendly beliefs towards women. I don\u2019t see any evidence where men don\u2019t enjoy the sexual liberations that women do. In fact, it can be argued they are encouraged to enjoy them at a younger age while women are still stifled in that department until we get to the \u201cwhy don\u2019t you have a baby yet?\u201d  stage of our lives.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rrhe8",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Personally. My central view is to counter the incel like community. Even if they aren't necessarily incels themselves. My view is, I don't care if men are lonely or that women are promiscuous. And I guess I want it changed or understand what the problem people have. Yes I'm very, in this regard, liberal I guess. Have as much sex. Don't shame others. Wanna be conservative? Stay conservative then. Leave the promiscuous people alone. Problem solved. \n\nI guess I just don't see the problem with men being single. so fucking what.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j5rr11l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rrftm",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "There's 2 things that need to change.\n\n1) People need to start being honest about the \"dating market\". There is still a lot of falsehoods that are mainstream. This is why ideologies like Red Pill have become popular. They at least attempt a more honest scientific approach. It's also why the Black Pill has become so popular. When people say horseshit all your life about dating, something that resonates for a change becomes very attractive. Even when it's horseshit in many ways as well. \n\n2) There needs to be a much stronger push to get people to socialize again. It is likely where most of the problems stem from. We've gotten really comfortable in our socially secluded lives with an abundance of entertainment.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rs30x",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why? If let's say I only like socializing with the \"elite\" what are you gonna do about it? Are you gonna shame me for socializing with the elite? (Not saying that's what I do) but why push for people to socialize again. And how do you propose to push people to socialize again? \n\nI mean, for the most part. I like my secluded life. If others don't, that's their problem. Why should I be the tool for their sake. You can say do it for my sake. But you (general you) don't get to decide that. What if I hate the majority of humans? I just don't see why people in general should be pushed to do something they don't want because someone else is getting sad. \n\nTo me I see this like pushing people to go out and hand out spare change to the poor. Just as its not the middle classes job to hand out money, its not women's job to give attention to men. (And vice versa) society shouldn't put pressure to obligate people to give companion ship",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j5rrftm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rsvlc",
                    "author": "GutsTheWellMannered",
                    "body": "The issue isn't that women can get dates easier than men, the issue is a growing non-insignificant number of men can't get anywhere full stop. We are talking like 10-20% of young men here. \n\nThat's a massive problem like it could destabilize all of society problem, it could lead to a civil war problem, it could lead to legalizing rape problem. Historically when a critical mass of men have zero reproductive prospects horrible things happen. \n\nLike if those 20% of men decided to just get together arm themselves and grab and rape women they'd be a stronger military force than my countries (Canada) military and police forces put together",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5rt33o",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "OK? and I and society is supposed to do what exactly? \nIf these men are single, there is at least a bit of women who are single too. Yet they aren't \"destabilizing \" society. So the problem isn't people being single.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j5rsvlc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5s7teu",
                    "author": "RichardArsenate",
                    "body": "Is this incel mentality you describe of jealous undersexed men really a common problem?  Outside of niche incel groups?",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5s8579",
                    "author": "EddgeLord666",
                    "body": "If a large number of women are hypergamous (only date men who make more money or are more attractive than them) it has significant negative externalities on everyone else. Therefore it\u2019s antisocial behavior and should be looked down upon and socially discouraged.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5sfiha",
                    "author": "happygiraffe404",
                    "body": "And are these women forcing these men to date them? If these poor men are being forced, then that should be stopped. If they're dating these women willingly, then do you suggest that we look down on all couples where the man is prettier than the woman and has more money than her?\n\nBe for real.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j5s8579"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5s8kws",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Proposal for this \"problem\" that doesn't restrict women's freedom:\n\nLegalize prostitution (while taking additional steps against trafficking).",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5sfmb8",
                    "author": "happygiraffe404",
                    "body": "They don't want that, they want real girlfriends. Have you ever had a conversation with an incel or seen a thread where people are seriously trying to give them suggestions? This is always the first suggestion.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j5s8kws"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5s8r8i",
                    "author": "uleekunkel",
                    "body": "Hard to understand what you're arguing. Are you saying we shouldn't slide into theocracy? If so I agree. Outside of theocracy is there anyone with an articulated plan to make people less free?",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5s9t8i",
                    "author": "CrewBest2158",
                    "body": "To be loved, be lovable. \n\nThat was written 2,000 years ago by the Roman poet Ovid. Of course it was in Latin but no matter what language it was in, it was true then and true now.  It's that easy, and that hard.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5syqd8",
                    "author": "ambisinister_gecko",
                    "body": "I don't know specifically what can be done to help \"men who can't get laid\", BUT I'm not inherently opposed to the idea that we should do something about it.\n\nThink about other similar problems that people today want to do something about. Are there any problems similar in scale and type to \"I can't get laid\" that you can think of, that you would support social and maybe even political action to solve?\n\nFirst, let's talk about why \"I can't get laid\" is a problem to begin with - let's analyse the important aspects of this problem. \n\nOne aspect of it is, we don't consider it a \"human right\" to get laid, nor should we, and it's not required for survival, so we shouldn't consider solving this problem at the same tier as solving problems that are about human rights or survival. I fully agree with that.\n\nBut if it's not a human right, and it's not an issue of survival, what kind of problem is it? It's an emotional problem. It is a problem that affects a small portion of society which has a slew of emotional effects, which I would argue could and often do turn into psychological problems and physical problems. People with chronic loneliness deteriorate in mental health over time, and there's proven physical health costs to chronic loneliness and the related problems.\n\nSo, it's not a human right, it's not a matter of direct survival like access to water is, BUT it does create very bad emotional, psychological and physical outcomes for the people involved in it.\n\nWhich, in my opinion, puts it into a tier with other problems that plenty of people in society DO want to do something about, legally or socially. There are other problems that aren't a matter of human rights or direct survival, but produce negative outcomes for the people suffering from them, that probably even you want to solve. \n\nGender based bullying in video games, for example. It's not considered a human right to not be made fun of in a video game, nor is it a matter of survival. But it sucks for the people who are the target of it, right? And that's enough reason for loads of people to want to start grass roots efforts to change the situation, and some people even want political solutions. Just because *it sucks*, and it feels bad. That's enough reason.\n\nSo maybe \"it sucks for these people that they can't get laid\" is also enough reason to do something about it. That something doesn't have to mean \"force women to fuck them\", it could mean something like \"offer free counselling\", \"legalized prostitution\", \"better and maybe socially funded dating services\", all sorts of approaches that don't have to involve trampling the rights of women.\n\nBut the motivation for wanting to do something about it is clear: it sucks. Bad.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5tjsnm",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Getting not laid is an action of something not happening to you. Getting bullied is something happening to you. The better analogy would be people not being friends with you. And that's frankly OK with me",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j5syqd8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5t8tld",
                    "author": "ArcadesRed",
                    "body": "Hedonism doesn't empower women, it gives 20% of men what they want and hurts women long term. \n\nDating apps show that the great majority of women are looking for less than 5% of men. Over 6 feet, 6 figure income, a degree, in shape. The a actual number is ridicules, its like less than 1% of men, I would have to look up the stats again. Men are attracted to women in there 20's who look attractive and don't annoy them. Money, career, degree, things like that don't factor in. \n\nSo you have lets call it 80% of women looking for 5% of guys who are looking for women under 30. Heck a lot of women are fine sharing those 5% of men. But if a guy can have a harem of 20 year old's, why should he not take the young women over the ones over 30? \n\nYou party through your 20's, half way through your 30's sleep with whoever, wherever. Heck I don't blame a single woman who goes that rout, sounds like an amazing life, I would love to try it. But now your 35 and the 5% wont even look at you anymore. The 95% you ignored for 17 years are all that's left and they know you looked down on them.  The girls from 20-35 who know what long term planning looks like spent the last 15 years snapping up the high value men who are not in the 5%. After 35 a man who has his shit together can suddenly start being very picky with his women. But a woman starts looking around asking where all the good men have gone. \n\nYou have spent over a decade working a job, so the job wins, and banging every hot guy around, so the hot guys wins, and you have an apartment, an expensive win habit and a cat. The job and the hot guy moving onto the next 20 year old. \n\nWomen don't need to be suppressed in their sexuality. They need to learn that they are giving the most valuable time in there lives away for free. Use the young body to secure future resources because youth is a depreciating asset. A guy loving you for what's inside requires them wanting to get to know you to begin with and at a glance that 28 year old looks more interesting. \n\nSource: I'm a 40 year old, 6'2\" guy who isn't butt ugly and works out just enough to not be fat, with a 6 figure income and a flashy new car and a house. My peers seem to have younger girlfriends and wives, often from other countries they have visited, every year. I haven't seen a single one of them marry a 35+ woman.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5vn9m8",
                    "author": "HeDoesNotRow",
                    "body": "I think your viewed is skewed by Reddit incels who complain about dating being so much easier for women\n\nYour view is pretty reasonable I think more people than you think would agree",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j69kp6y",
                    "author": "macca_is_lord",
                    "body": "Agreed",
                    "date": "2023-01-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j5vn9m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5wbsiw",
                    "author": "Freakthot",
                    "body": "I disagree. I think freedom is bad because it's not good. Hopefully I changed your view so I can post.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5wuov1",
                    "author": "Some_Strange_Dude",
                    "body": "I would like to approach this question from a different angle.\n\nI think you could question if this principle of \"ultimate freedom\" really makes people happy in the first place? It seems to me that in this era where online dating is slowly becoming the norm, more choices actually leads to increased loneliness and anxiety for most. People are treated like goods on a marketplace, where you need to portray a mandated image of yourself before you even have a chance of meeting others. That either leads to people getting caught up in wanting rush of confirmation, or (more likely) being sad and depressed because they struggle to meet the unrealistic standards these mediums encourage. If you somehow make it through that matching process, people are still often lured by the thought of greener pastures. \"Sure this girl is great, but what if my perfect match is still out there?\". \n\nIncreasingly gone are the days where we give one another a chance to develop a connection and don't look at everything in a comparative sense. Most look for that instant spark, the sort of crazy \"love at first sight\" that we see in the movies. But that is, at best, a temporary illusion that ends once you get out of the initial honeymoon phase of a relationship. Real love is based on an active effort to love each other through both the good and hard times, and building a lasting bond through the loyalty and dedication that requires. Compatibility can make that easier, but ultimately these problem will exist regardless of that.",
                    "date": "2023-01-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5zbrw0",
                    "author": "lumberjack_jeff",
                    "body": "People are going to demand change based on perceived inequities - that's human nature. However, given the social realities that women are gatekeepers to sex, what does that imply about the merits of changing other perceived problems?\n\nFor instance, women complain frequently about the clothing options that are available to them, the cost of personal care, etc. But given what you've described above, it's hard to make the case that women's fashion and women's personal care is primarily intended to attract men. In reality women's fashion is primarily to signal social status to other women.\n\nAs the saying goes, \"men look at women, while women look at women shoes\".\n\nWomen's fashion and personal care is expensive by design, if it wasn't expensive, other women wouldn't get the message. *This isn't a problem and it can't be fixed*.\n\nYou're right, about your basic point, nothing can be done about mating preference, but accepting this fundamental reality can help us design tangentially-related social policy.",
                    "date": "2023-01-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j5zqta5",
                    "author": "Glory2Hypnotoad",
                    "body": "I don't think we need to change anything in the sense of passing some law mandating forced interaction. But what we can do is look at trends as the downstream effect of social attitudes and reevaluate whether those attitudes benefit us.\n\nFor example, I think men have a hard time getting a woman and women have to deal with unwanted attention from men in part because we have conflicting social standards for them. We as a society teach men to rack up conquests and women to guard their purity, which leads to clashing incentives and unhappiness on both sides.",
                    "date": "2023-01-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j69jj5a",
                    "author": "macca_is_lord",
                    "body": "Well, let's look at it from the other side. Women as a group are catcalled and harassed constantly. Despite all our progress it's still culturally subconciously expected that men make the first moves in relationships. There are still a lot of lonely women, (or women interested in clueless men as the common joke goes), if we as a society make it so it becomes broadly expected that either a woman or a man can make the first move in a relationship, that etiquette is universally important, that men should seek comfort and support in friendship, and that women are motivated to go and ask out or propose to men, then that would be a net good for everyone. In fact, maybe if men are made to be a lot more careful about asking women out, women will not automatically read every stranger's advance as creepy because she isn't being constantly bombarded by creepy men and the \"average joe\" would have more of a chance. Men not being desired or slept with as much as women (in the common manosphere view) is simply one side of the larger cultural issue that women are expected to be passively bombarded by a cavalcade of male suitors fighting with each other. We have culturally evolved, and because both sexes are expected to raise children, the economic and time investments in relationships for men (though not the biological ones) are becoming equal to women, therefore the idea of lots of lonely men going after precious choosey women is a vestige of patriarchal society --- those men should learn not to be creepy, yes, but those women need to be empowered to take an active role in relationships, and if we fix the problem of patriarchy then men won't be disproportionately lonely. Therefore it is a problem worth solving for the sake of women no longer being harassed or being allowed to propose because it is all connected and plays into those larger issues. It would also help fix \"deadbeat dads\", men being expected to not express emotion, women being percieved as \"passive\", and the truckload of angry sexless young men on the internet following the pied pipline into anti-feminist alt-right manospheric inceldom. And it is something you should care about if you care about gender equality and preventing the same angry incel extremists that talk about \"hypergamy\" and that you evidently dislike. The manosphere likes to position itself in opposition to feminism, when in actuality, all the \"mens issues\" they talk about are remnants of patriarchy and would be remedied by the pursuit and fufillment of feminist goals. You can do great things for feminism if you work on fixing the \"women have it easier than men in getting relationships\" problem with feminist solutions, because attacking it from a feminist perspective will help fix all those other patriarchal vestiges that you presumably do (and should) care about. All issues of gender inequality are important because they are potential opportunities for the advancement of feminism and making everyone happier.",
                    "date": "2023-01-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jc0utgg",
                    "author": "Vose4492",
                    "body": "Here is what I will say. \n\nIt is customary for men to approach women. Because of this fact, many women do not want to pursue the man. I will bet that conventionally attractive women probably have an easier time finding someone to date than men do, I do not think that the same can be said about an ugly or even an average looking woman.",
                    "date": "2023-03-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jc0vq9q",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "And this changes views because....?",
                    "date": "2023-03-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jc0utgg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10kn55f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": " I think this fact is no different than saying 'the sky is blue'. Yes and...? So there are men who can't get dates while plenty of women get dates/sex. And...?\n\nAre you asking us to make promiscuity illegal?\n\nI really don't see the issue. Like on reddit there's plenty of subs where men say things like 'it's so hard to get laid'. I mean, sucks to be you, but I don't think there needs to be anything done.\n\nTo changemyview: that something needs to be done and that the doer will benefit from it. The way I see it, if something needs to be done, it comes at a cost. Tax payer money maybe. Reducing the freedoms of women. None of which I like.\n\nI don't believe in slut shaming women. I really don't care. If she's consensually fucking 500 men and the men are fucking 500 women, that's their business. \n\nWhat do I benefit from having a society where people are constantly minding how much sex I have or don't have? The way I see it, rather than going back to the 'good old days', we should in fact give men more freedoms, just like women. Now adultery is not harmful (legally) to women. I think it should be the same for men, such as with child care support. \n\nOnce again, I will not change my view if you cannot give me a justified reason if the solution is to restrict women. \n\nNow, if you say, we wont legally restrict women, we will just shame them. Shame them for what? sleeping around? or simply rejecting men that aren't up to their standards? This part doesn't make sense either. No one should be shamed for any standard, frankly. \n\nIf a woman says 'no men under 6 feet' then stay the fuck away from this freak. If a man says 'no fatties' stay the fuck away then. Like I said, my view is to liberate men as well. \n\nIt comes from my principles of giving people freedoms and choices. Women choose to not sleep with men, and they should be free to do so, because men aren't entitled to it. So even if it makes men sad and lonely, it's really too bad. But there's nothing to be done.",
                    "date": "2023-01-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Even if it's a fact that women have it easier to find someone interested in dating them, it's something I don't think society needs changing other than giving everyone MORE freedom",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10kn55f/cmv_even_if_its_a_fact_that_women_have_it_easier/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jigqa02",
                    "author": "Charge-Sure",
                    "body": "Nope, you can spend an entire life alone as a handsome dude wothout friends, without followers on social media, without sex and being virgin. See if any women care. They just go for whatever, while the dudes are into some deep platonic love about conquering a lady, the women just spread their legs. Women are sluts, change my mind (I am actually doing therapy just to change my mind). But then again, once i get a job and hire a prostitute for every week, then i dont need women whatsoever. Nowadays people are superficial, so its better to just hire whores anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-05-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10kn55f"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jigqnfs",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Lol why do I want to change your mind? thought its the other way around",
                    "date": "2023-05-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jigqa02"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10uudh3",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                "date": "2023-02-05",
                "score": 227,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7dx48p",
                "author": "Guymandudefish",
                "body": "What is your goal of your proposed need based financial assistance? Is it to eliminate wealth disparities between races? Or something else?",
                "date": "2023-02-05",
                "score": 11,
                "parent_id": "10uudh3"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7dzvk7",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "I'm thinking like a utilitarian; the goal would be to minimize the suffering of less-well-off people, whether or not they are poor due to past injustices or just due to more run-of-the-mill reasons for being poor.\n\nI don't think I could say that the goal is to eliminate wealth disparities between races.  If you simply take money from the wealthier race and give it to the less wealthy race, then if you end up at the point where you have the same amount of happiness and the same amount of suffering in the world as you did before, except now it's evenly distributed between the races, have you really achieved anything?\n\nI think that wealth equality between races is a *symptom* of a fair society and therefore one that has probably done a good job maximizing benefits to its people in a utilitarian sense; if we reach Black-white wealth equality, it probably means we've had several generations where everybody who wanted to become a doctor had a decent shot at it.  But that's a *symptom* of a benefit-maximizing society, not a cause, i.e. you can't solve other problems just by moving money from white people to Black people, instead of targeting the people who need it the most.\n\nI do agree that this was insufficiently clarified in the original post and this has caused me to revise and clarify my own thoughts.\n\n\u0394",
                "date": "2023-02-05",
                "score": 12,
                "parent_id": "j7dx48p"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7dzx1m",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Guymandudefish ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Guymandudefish)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-05",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7dzvk7"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7dwduu",
                    "author": "Awkward-Entrance-291",
                    "body": "What exactly do you mean by need based financial assistance? Because that could refer to a ride range of things at a range of degrees.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7dx0vd",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "This is true, of course; I'm not taking a position on *which* type of need-based aid would be the best, I'm just saying it shouldn't have anything to with anything that happened before you were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7dwduu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e11p2",
                    "author": "ScarySuit",
                    "body": "To me, this reads like you are saying we can have reparations OR purely need based assistance. Why can't we have both? We currently have need based support, but racial disparity persists. \n\nNeed based support does not seem enough to fill the gaps and ignores that the negative effects of racial discrimination persisted long after slavery was abolished. Sure, no one alive today owned slaves, but many did protest things like : interracial marriage (See Loving v Virginia 1967), desegregation of schools (~1959), etc and many injustices continue to this day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e3yf5",
                    "author": "nofftastic",
                    "body": "I agree that reparations would be just, but there [doesn't seem to be any way to actually pay them in a just manner](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/zfppio/cmv_black_americans_deserve_reparations/izd5b7p/). From a pragmatic, practical standpoint, needs-based assistance is vastly preferable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "j7e11p2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e54rv",
                    "author": "SunsetKittens",
                    "body": "Flat out universal assistance makes more sense than either need based or race based assistance. \n\nFor example: your medical bill? Covered! Don't need to pass paperwork back and forth, wonder if you got it, think maybe you committed fraud ... none of that. \n\nFor example universal basic income? Well, are you a citizen? Yes? Then got it! \n\nBy making things universal instead of need based you **eliminate** entire buildings of administration and **save** friction costs. You **unclog minds** of the people and give them back their attention because **expectations are clear**. \n\nIn practice the poor will get aid and the rich will get a tax refund. Poor people like aid. Rich people like tax refunds. It works out for everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 59,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ea08o",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I would agree but that still counts as wealth-based transfer (the wealthiest pay the tax bill, the benefits go to everyone else).",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "j7e54rv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e6hm0",
                    "author": "151Gunnin",
                    "body": "Reparations or financial support won't do shit. Reparations would be wasted due to America's putting black people in bad neighborhoods and making sure they own damn near nothing, everything is rented and education is purposely shit, even more than usual. Financial aid is just a weak lifeline to be taken by the next politician that enters the fray. The effects of slavery will never be undone until there's a drastic change for the whole of the working class. \n\nI'm not holding my breath.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e9g3z",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "But this just sounds like an argument for more (or more targeted) need-based aid, to give people a chance at owning instead of renting, and/or make the bad neighborhoods better.\n\nHowever you want to do it, the only point I\u2019m making is that it shouldn\u2019t be based on things that happened before you were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "j7e6hm0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e72v8",
                    "author": "Banankartong",
                    "body": "This hypotetical case: my father lived in a house that the family had owned for generations. The king came and stole the house and evicted the father, because the king wanted to have a house for visiting.  The king and my father is dead. Both me and the Kings son live in our own appartments, is able to support ourselves and is living a good life with no need of support. But both of us would like us to live in the house. The lawyers should now decide if i or the Kings son is the rightful owner of the house. Who should own the house?",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e89ji",
                    "author": "transport_system",
                    "body": "An easier example may be neurodivergent people. Even if you pay people below a certain income level, you'll still need extra money for neurodivergent people since they're navigating a world designed for neurotypical people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e972y",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I agree this makes sense as an adjunct to need-based aid. However I\u2019m technically not taking a position on what kind of need-based aid is best; only that it shouldn\u2019t take into account things that happened before you were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7e89ji"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7eqj5q",
                    "author": "Daegog",
                    "body": ">In other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for. \n\nHow are so sure of this?\n\nI recall distinctly, it was 1980, my grandfather, a relatively successful businessman tried once again to get a loan to buy a home outside the city and in the suburbs.  \n\nI will never forget he said, I will try to talk to a young white banker, maybe they don't know to hate black people yet.\n\nWhen he came back, utterly dejected because he was not approved yet again, he said, don't forget, even the young ones hate negroes (that \n was his phrase for black people, of course he was born in 1920)\n\nRedlining OFFICIALLY ended in 1968, but unofficially, it continued WELL after that.\n\nTo say that young banker who rejected my Grandfather all those years ago is no longer alive is a bit sketchy.\n\nFor those asking, yes about 6 or so years later, he was finally approved for the loan, he was so happy that he took the whole family to see that movie the Golden Child.  That was a good day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7esocm",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": ">In other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.\n\nI should have added, \"... although it is legitimate to be compensated for things that happened to *you* specifically, in your lifetime.\"  That would include compensation for things like what happened to your grandfather if he were still alive -- it would be difficult to do that accurately, but it's legitimate to try.\n\nWhat I'm saying is there's no point in trying to compensate for things that happened 100 years ago.  Give people financial assistance based on their status today; if people are lower-income because of what happened 100 years ago, that will be priced in to a financial-assistance-based program.\n\nGlad you enjoyed the movie.  Hope your grandfather smiled when Eddie said \"Yeah Imma paddle, Imma a paddle his ass!\"...",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7eqj5q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7es9g7",
                    "author": "let_it_be_22",
                    "body": "how does need based aid address financial disparities and existing discrimination of minorities that prevent them from achieving as much financially? Things such as redlining would not be addressed with need based aid and where would the money come from? if not from the pockets of whites families who obtain generational wealth starting from slavery or any horrific historical event then idk how it equates to reparations or evens the playing field. Also just curious what brought this question up\ud83d\ude05 it\u2019s not like black ppl have gotten or will ever likely receive reparations",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7et35m",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\"how does need based aid address financial disparities\" - isn't that pretty much by definition what need-based aid addresses?\n\n\"how does need based aid address existing discrimination of minorities\" -- that depends on how much that still exists.  Do people think that if a Black guy and a white guy apply for the same tech job, and they have the same certifications and other qualifications, that the white guy is more likely to get the job?  Has anyone shown any evidence of that happening for people *with similar qualifications*?\n\nMy understanding was that the bigger program today was financial barriers that prevent lower-income people (which disproportionately affects people of color, of course) from attaining those certifications and experiences in the first place.  Not that the employer was throwing away resumes of Black candidates.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7es9g7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7euudn",
                    "author": "zekevm",
                    "body": "Is that what were going to do when the police kill someone and the family sues the department? Of course not and that's why these two concepts your talking about are different. Reparations for our ancestors is different than food stamps or cash assistance.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ev4t4",
                    "author": "PlayingTheWrongGame",
                    "body": "Reparations aren\u2019t about the individual. They\u2019re about collective responsibility. \n\nIt\u2019s about the government\u2014which was directly responsible for some awful act in the past\u2014making restitution for that crime. \n\nThe government needs to make reparations for the crimes it enacted even if there isn\u2019t a way to figure out who the recipients ought to be because too many records were destroyed or too much time has passed. The manner by which that reparation gets paid might be hard to figure out, but the need to pay it is morally pretty straightforward.\n\nPeople just don\u2019t like the idea of paying the bill.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fqti3",
                    "author": "jak72",
                    "body": "You argue that need-based beats reparations. I argue that while need-based clearly has merit, reparations cannot be replaced by need-based because all black people were set back in many ways and thus deserve a boost forward EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT POOR. \n\nYou define reparations as payments for the mistreatment of your ancestors not of yourself. The problem is, the mistreatment of black ancestors has set black people back today. Maybe Jack would be rich if Jack's dad with top law school grades was able to be hired by the top law firm. Or if Jack's dad was able to get into law school. Because he was not, Jack doesn't get the head start an upper middle class rich-ish kid would get. And because of that, Jack goes to worse grade schools and doesnt see black people in white collar jobs (esp his dad) so doesnt identify with that lifestyle, doesnt pursue it as readily, and suddenly his potential has shrunk greatly.\n\nIn short, black people have been moved 50 meters behind the starting line generations ago. Then, eventually, the laws and attitudes changed to today, where subtle racism (and rare overt racism) still exists in the US but generally speaking no one is being denied jobs, housing, service, etc for being black. The key is this: when we removed the laws that put them 50 meters back, we left them wherever they were. We did not move them forward whatsoever, nevermind forward 50 meters to where they would be without the racist restrictions on them. \n\nJack's son, present day, can be whatever he wants. But he too does not have all the advantages that he wouldve had, had Jack's dad not been held back generations ago. It seems entirely reasonable to me that Jack's son receive some form of reparations to, for example, get him into a better grade school. A school which he theoretically would have been attending anyway, had his grandpa had the opportunity he should have had. Or maybe it's about going from a good school to a great school! Some black people are not poor, but all suffered being moved back, and thus all deserve to be moved forward to compensate for this. \n\nNote, that doesnt mean re-litigating anything. What it means it trying to give them a boost to balance the setbacks the gov caused them. The lucky ones who have really thrived since then should not be disentitled from compensation for these imposed setbacks just because they managed to have some success. It is fair to assume that without the setbacks, the lucky ones would be even further along, so in making things right the gov has a duty to help them get back where they would be. \n\nThis all comes from the principle of paying for the wrongs you caused. Lucky ones were still wronged (by basically having generations of forced poverty, lack of education, etc until recently) and thus still must be compensated EVEN THOUGH they recovered well from the wrong. If you are shot, narrowly avoid dying, and go on to become a super fit triathlete, you still get compensated for bodily harm caused to you in spite of the fact that you recovered from that wrong well. Here, you might say the wrong was passed down to you instead of hitting you directly, but it still poisoned your family, your community, and these impacts still unmistakably affect your life in huge ways. That deserves compensation. \n\nFinal note -- it isnt even about some utilitarian \"we have to help the disadvantaged black people bc theyre so poor etc\" philosophy. As I've said, they may not be poor. It is simply about making up for putting black people 50 meters back.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jp66d",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I think that \"need-based\" was the wrong word because it implies helping only the poor.  I probably should have said \"wealth transfers based on current wealth levels\".  (Where I'm using \"wealth\" loosely to include current income and projected earnings, etc.)\n\nIn other words, if two groups of people are working equally hard, but due to the disadvantaged circumstances that the first group grew up in, the people in the first group make $70K a year and the people in the second group make $130K a year, \"wealth transfers\" could include transfers from the second group to the first group, even though the first group is not \"poor\".\n\nI'm just saying \"the first group\" should be defined by the disadvantaged circumstances that *they personally* faced.  People of any race should be eligible and it should not include payback for things that happened before they were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7fqti3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gkjq2",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Generational wealth disparity is the issue behind the call for reparations. Not current wealth disparity.\r  \n\r  \nIt is arguable that no amount of money can ever repay the Native American tribes and nations for the genocide and degradations they endured. But the resulting effect of being forced onto the worst land for farming, being denied access to markets and commerce, being denied education, being denied access to their own culture and language, all sits at the root of why the numerous social and financial issues facing Native Americans today. The land alone stolen from these people through the intentional breaking of treaties they made in good faith is worth trillions of dollars today.\r  \n\r  \nThat land is still there. The people are still here. And the impact of that forced transfer of wealth at the point of a gun remains.\r  \n\r  \nSaying \"oh, here's some welfare to compensate you for being poor -- now go do something with yourself\" coming from people who are sitting on literally more wealth than the GDP of most nations of their stolen land and benefiting daily from access to that property is beyond insulting. And totally fails to understand the issues at hand.\r  \n\r  \nSimilar things can be said about African-Americans, and other minorities who were exploited then intentionally denied the ability to succeed for generations upon generations so that white Americans could become extremely wealthy by comparison.\r  \n\r  \nI get the average lower-middle class white family doesn't think they personally benefitted, so they don't see why they should personally pay anything. But that's looking at things the wrong way. This isn't about injustice to a specific individual committed to another specific individual. This is about crimes against humanity committed by white society against other cultures for the expressed purpose of enriching the white culture at the expense of the minority cultures.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gtjpe",
                    "author": "fox-mcleod",
                    "body": "What if I\u2019m rich despite my ancestors objectively being exploited?\n\nHow is it just that the people who took our property get to keep it?",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7h0ygz",
                    "author": "substantial-freud",
                    "body": "The people who took your property are dead.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7gtjpe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gua86",
                    "author": "cherflugen",
                    "body": "Whether a policy makes sense or not is entirely dependent on the goals it aims to achieve. Depending on the goal both could make more sense than the other. If the goal is well being in the utilitarian sense which it seems your argument assumes, then I would agree with you, but from what I can tell reparations isn\u2019t utilitarian it\u2019s primarily about justice. It is about the US government correcting a historical wrong it created. Under these circumstances reparations clearly makes more sense.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jml4b",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I agree that is apparently the goal, I just think that concept of \"justice\" falls apart under scrutiny, if the real victims are dead, and you're just trying to give money to people who are not the victims, but just biologically descended from them.  Suppose that instead of being the victims of a crime, your ancestors were the perpetrators.  Should you be punished instead of compensated?  If that logic doesn't work for punishment, why should it work for victimhood compensation?\n\nThat's why I prefer the utilitarian approach of just helping people who need it now.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7gua86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7h44ez",
                    "author": "ywoslo",
                    "body": "The big problem is that there is always intense opposition to any kind of policy designed to create greater economic equality. Being rich inherently gives you more political influence, and almost all rich people are obviously going to be opposed to sharing their wealth with others.\n\nIn reality, either reparations for slavery or a broader shift towards economic equality will be extremely hard to achieve. Telling people who are campaigning for the former that they should campaign for the latter is a bit like telling a firefighter who is trying and failing to put out a small part of a fire that they should instead focus on putting out the entire fire at once.\n\nThough another factor is that slavery reparations are something that wealthy Black people can get behind - in fact, wealthy people in general can get behind it, knowing that it doesn't threaten their wealth in the same way that a broader shift towards something like socialism would.\n\n> Practically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.\n\nMany countries have done this to some extent, but most of them continue to allow the rich to access their own elite medical and educational institutions, and people constantly have to campaign to maintain public funding for state schools and hospitals. There isn't a quick fix to economic inequality. It seems to be an eternal struggle.\n\nI also think you're ignoring the complicated interplay between economic and non-economic forms of inequality and prejudice, and that they both seem to reinforce each other. The higher poverty rates among ethnic minority groups aren't purely down to the lack of inherited wealth: they're also down to the prejudice and discrimination that members of those groups have faced themselves. But of course, much of that prejudice ultimately stems from their ancestors being poor. There is an argument that creating economic equality between races could help to rapidly reduce those other forms of prejudice.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jnkme",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "Well if you're asking whether it's easy to sell the public on \"reparations\" or \"inequality-reducing wealth transfer\", it seems the obvious question is \"how much in reparations\" vs. \"how much in inequality-reducing wealth transfer\".\n\nSo assume you're talking about shifting the same amount of money.  On the one hand, yes reparations may have more support from some rich Black people (but less than you might think - richer Black Americans are more likely to skew conservative, and even if they didn't, they might think it was just a bad look to be asking for reparations!).  On the other hand, I think this would be outweighed by the fact that reparations are morally harder to defend than wealth transfers to help the poor.\n\nSo I posit that for given fixed amount of money, inequality-reducing wealth transfers would be easier to sell politically than reparations.  Do you think that's not the case?",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7h44ez"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7iazfk",
                    "author": "BenefitOfTheDoubt_01",
                    "body": "You can't rectify a past injustice with a future injustice. \n\nReparations is just straight up racist bullshit. It's the same argument used to support policies treating races differently (affirmative action). I grew up on the value that your supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of what they look like. I will not accept a fucking penny from my neighbor just because their skin color is different from mine. That is morally repugnant.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jiyzy",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "OK, although I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing, since I said I was arguing for an alternative to reparations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7iazfk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7innv7",
                    "author": "humbleprotector",
                    "body": "If any of the family members of the recipient have committed a violent crime than all of that families reparation money should go to the victim of that crime. It only makes sense",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7lfnp6",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": "I think universal basic income is a better answer to this underlying problem than either needs-based or race-based assistance. If the fundamental issue you're working to resolve is the degree to which generational wealth produces unevenness of opportunity in a society, than providing everyone with an equal economic floor is going to be the most straightforward and effective way of getting that done.\n\nWith that said, I think your objection to reparations comes from a different perspective as my own, and from a bit of a misunderstanding of how reparations function:\n\n* Reparations come from institutions, not from individuals -- e.g.,, they're a payment made by a nation, for crimes that it committed against another nation or group of people. \n* Since the US is the same state that perpetrated / benefited from slavery, the argument that nobody alive participated is moot; if reparations were to be paid, the payer is the same in 2023 as it would have been in 1823.\n* The major challenge is that the entities and individuals that the USA *harmed* are not still in existence. There is no African state that the US damaged via the slave trade, as none of them existed then. Similarly, there are no US citizens that the US committed crimes against via the slave trade, because:\n   * The thing they did was not, at the time, a crime\n   * The people they committed the crime against were not, at the time, citizens\n\nIf the goal is to combat inequality, reparations aren't a particularly useful way of doing it; if it's to settle damages caused by unlawful conduct by the US government (ie, what reparations are for), then there's no party with standing, and the actions in question were legal at the time.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7shid4",
                    "author": "Proud-Dot4915",
                    "body": "I agree that the poor in general should be helped. I personally think it's inappropriate for black people today to exploit slaves of the past for money. However, the problem is that this push for \"reparations\" isn't about class or poverty. Rather, it's motivated by tribalism. You'd be surprised how many rich African Americans like BET founder Robert Johnson want free \"reparations\" money too.",
                    "date": "2023-02-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7tn9u9",
                    "author": "whovillehoedown",
                    "body": "There is no way to fix wage disparities without factoring in slavery, jim crow, etc. That's not possible because of how those things impacted the black community and actively structured the systems we have in place that run America's economy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8acxga",
                    "author": "SingleMaltMouthwash",
                    "body": "Why one or the other? They are not mutually exclusive. \n\nAs a society, surely it is in all of our interest to make the best possible education available to anyone who is capable and ambitious enough to take advantage of it. Surely it is in all our interests to so arrange opportunity to maximize upward social and economic mobility for everyone.\n\nAt the same time, 200 (slavery and Jim Crow) years of excluding non-white Americans from the same employment, wages, bank loans, schools, land grants, military rank and specialty, state and federal economic and business programs, GI loans and grants, scholarships and professional opportunities has had lingering effects upon those communities that a developed sense of morality and justice would trouble us to correct.",
                    "date": "2023-02-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j994onp",
                    "author": "mydikizlong",
                    "body": "Just help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\n'poor people' can help themselves by working, saving, investing in their future...\n\nTaxation is theft by definition.\n\nIn \\[a\\]merica, EVERYONE is now free to work, save, and invest. And they have been for nearly a hundred years.\n\n'poor people' in \\[a\\]merica are poor 'mostly' because of their own choices.\n\nI am poor. I've worked and saved, and worked and saved, and worked...\n\nAll the while, plans that 'help the poor' have stolen half of everything I've ever earned...\n\nAND, the 'poor' are driving escalades, they all have sail foams, air jordans, freezers full of hot pockets, tattoos on every inch of their body, jewelry, a flat screen t.v. in every room, free food, free health care, free housing, free education, free heat, free needles, free crack pipes, free wi-fi, tax credits...\n\nAnd I have none of that even though I've been working my whole life.\n\nThis is capitalism baby. Work or die.\n\nI may not be able to change your view today but maybe if you work your arse off for 40 years and end up with nothing to show for it; that may be a step in the right direction.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10uudh3",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                "date": "2023-02-05",
                "score": 227,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7fdkko",
                "author": "Rainbow_Frog1",
                "body": "I think there are two different types on inequality, both of which need to be addressed.\n\n- Inequality between groups\n\n- Inequality between individuals\n\nReducing the inequality between groups makes sense to me because 1. No one type of person deserves more or less wealth (and thus power) just on the basis of having been born a certain way. 2. Differences in wealth between groups can cause tensions between them.\n\nThe reparations seem to be focused more on solving the former inequality.\n\nThe inequality between individuals I think we will never fully solve, but it could (and in my opinion should) be reduced.",
                "date": "2023-02-06",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "10uudh3"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7jpzas",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "Regarding reducing inequality between groups, I think your statement \"1. No one type of person deserves more or less wealth (and thus power) just on the basis of having been born a certain way\" -- while I agree with that statement, I think it's an argument *against* doing wealth transfers based on what group you're in.\n\nBecause under a group-based payment system, a person who is poor and who happens to be in the group that is poorer on average, is going to get a payment, but a person who is equally poor but happens to be a member of the wealthier group, is not.\n\nHence, I think the statement \"No one type of person deserves more or less wealth (and thus power) just on the basis of having been born a certain way\" is an argument in favor of paying poor people equally regardless of the average wealth of the group they happen to be in.\n\nThe second reason -- \"Differences in wealth between groups can cause tensions between them\" -- is more thought-provoking.  Before I had naively said, essentially, \"If you redistribute wealth so that you have the same number of rich and poor people, but now it's evenly distributed across the races instead of being skewed way, have you really achieved anything?\"  I had implied the answer was No.  But perhaps you could argue that the same amount of wealth and poverty, evenly distributed across races, would actually leave people better off, because you remove the \\*additional\\* toll of the resentment and tension between races, etc.\n\n\u0394",
                "date": "2023-02-07",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7fdkko"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7jq0n5",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Rainbow_Frog1 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Rainbow_Frog1)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-07",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7jpzas"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7dwduu",
                    "author": "Awkward-Entrance-291",
                    "body": "What exactly do you mean by need based financial assistance? Because that could refer to a ride range of things at a range of degrees.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7dx0vd",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "This is true, of course; I'm not taking a position on *which* type of need-based aid would be the best, I'm just saying it shouldn't have anything to with anything that happened before you were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7dwduu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e11p2",
                    "author": "ScarySuit",
                    "body": "To me, this reads like you are saying we can have reparations OR purely need based assistance. Why can't we have both? We currently have need based support, but racial disparity persists. \n\nNeed based support does not seem enough to fill the gaps and ignores that the negative effects of racial discrimination persisted long after slavery was abolished. Sure, no one alive today owned slaves, but many did protest things like : interracial marriage (See Loving v Virginia 1967), desegregation of schools (~1959), etc and many injustices continue to this day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e3yf5",
                    "author": "nofftastic",
                    "body": "I agree that reparations would be just, but there [doesn't seem to be any way to actually pay them in a just manner](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/zfppio/cmv_black_americans_deserve_reparations/izd5b7p/). From a pragmatic, practical standpoint, needs-based assistance is vastly preferable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "j7e11p2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e54rv",
                    "author": "SunsetKittens",
                    "body": "Flat out universal assistance makes more sense than either need based or race based assistance. \n\nFor example: your medical bill? Covered! Don't need to pass paperwork back and forth, wonder if you got it, think maybe you committed fraud ... none of that. \n\nFor example universal basic income? Well, are you a citizen? Yes? Then got it! \n\nBy making things universal instead of need based you **eliminate** entire buildings of administration and **save** friction costs. You **unclog minds** of the people and give them back their attention because **expectations are clear**. \n\nIn practice the poor will get aid and the rich will get a tax refund. Poor people like aid. Rich people like tax refunds. It works out for everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 59,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ea08o",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I would agree but that still counts as wealth-based transfer (the wealthiest pay the tax bill, the benefits go to everyone else).",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "j7e54rv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e6hm0",
                    "author": "151Gunnin",
                    "body": "Reparations or financial support won't do shit. Reparations would be wasted due to America's putting black people in bad neighborhoods and making sure they own damn near nothing, everything is rented and education is purposely shit, even more than usual. Financial aid is just a weak lifeline to be taken by the next politician that enters the fray. The effects of slavery will never be undone until there's a drastic change for the whole of the working class. \n\nI'm not holding my breath.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e9g3z",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "But this just sounds like an argument for more (or more targeted) need-based aid, to give people a chance at owning instead of renting, and/or make the bad neighborhoods better.\n\nHowever you want to do it, the only point I\u2019m making is that it shouldn\u2019t be based on things that happened before you were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "j7e6hm0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e72v8",
                    "author": "Banankartong",
                    "body": "This hypotetical case: my father lived in a house that the family had owned for generations. The king came and stole the house and evicted the father, because the king wanted to have a house for visiting.  The king and my father is dead. Both me and the Kings son live in our own appartments, is able to support ourselves and is living a good life with no need of support. But both of us would like us to live in the house. The lawyers should now decide if i or the Kings son is the rightful owner of the house. Who should own the house?",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e89ji",
                    "author": "transport_system",
                    "body": "An easier example may be neurodivergent people. Even if you pay people below a certain income level, you'll still need extra money for neurodivergent people since they're navigating a world designed for neurotypical people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7e972y",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I agree this makes sense as an adjunct to need-based aid. However I\u2019m technically not taking a position on what kind of need-based aid is best; only that it shouldn\u2019t take into account things that happened before you were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7e89ji"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7eqj5q",
                    "author": "Daegog",
                    "body": ">In other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for. \n\nHow are so sure of this?\n\nI recall distinctly, it was 1980, my grandfather, a relatively successful businessman tried once again to get a loan to buy a home outside the city and in the suburbs.  \n\nI will never forget he said, I will try to talk to a young white banker, maybe they don't know to hate black people yet.\n\nWhen he came back, utterly dejected because he was not approved yet again, he said, don't forget, even the young ones hate negroes (that \n was his phrase for black people, of course he was born in 1920)\n\nRedlining OFFICIALLY ended in 1968, but unofficially, it continued WELL after that.\n\nTo say that young banker who rejected my Grandfather all those years ago is no longer alive is a bit sketchy.\n\nFor those asking, yes about 6 or so years later, he was finally approved for the loan, he was so happy that he took the whole family to see that movie the Golden Child.  That was a good day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7esocm",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": ">In other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.\n\nI should have added, \"... although it is legitimate to be compensated for things that happened to *you* specifically, in your lifetime.\"  That would include compensation for things like what happened to your grandfather if he were still alive -- it would be difficult to do that accurately, but it's legitimate to try.\n\nWhat I'm saying is there's no point in trying to compensate for things that happened 100 years ago.  Give people financial assistance based on their status today; if people are lower-income because of what happened 100 years ago, that will be priced in to a financial-assistance-based program.\n\nGlad you enjoyed the movie.  Hope your grandfather smiled when Eddie said \"Yeah Imma paddle, Imma a paddle his ass!\"...",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7eqj5q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7es9g7",
                    "author": "let_it_be_22",
                    "body": "how does need based aid address financial disparities and existing discrimination of minorities that prevent them from achieving as much financially? Things such as redlining would not be addressed with need based aid and where would the money come from? if not from the pockets of whites families who obtain generational wealth starting from slavery or any horrific historical event then idk how it equates to reparations or evens the playing field. Also just curious what brought this question up\ud83d\ude05 it\u2019s not like black ppl have gotten or will ever likely receive reparations",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7et35m",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\"how does need based aid address financial disparities\" - isn't that pretty much by definition what need-based aid addresses?\n\n\"how does need based aid address existing discrimination of minorities\" -- that depends on how much that still exists.  Do people think that if a Black guy and a white guy apply for the same tech job, and they have the same certifications and other qualifications, that the white guy is more likely to get the job?  Has anyone shown any evidence of that happening for people *with similar qualifications*?\n\nMy understanding was that the bigger program today was financial barriers that prevent lower-income people (which disproportionately affects people of color, of course) from attaining those certifications and experiences in the first place.  Not that the employer was throwing away resumes of Black candidates.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7es9g7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7euudn",
                    "author": "zekevm",
                    "body": "Is that what were going to do when the police kill someone and the family sues the department? Of course not and that's why these two concepts your talking about are different. Reparations for our ancestors is different than food stamps or cash assistance.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ev4t4",
                    "author": "PlayingTheWrongGame",
                    "body": "Reparations aren\u2019t about the individual. They\u2019re about collective responsibility. \n\nIt\u2019s about the government\u2014which was directly responsible for some awful act in the past\u2014making restitution for that crime. \n\nThe government needs to make reparations for the crimes it enacted even if there isn\u2019t a way to figure out who the recipients ought to be because too many records were destroyed or too much time has passed. The manner by which that reparation gets paid might be hard to figure out, but the need to pay it is morally pretty straightforward.\n\nPeople just don\u2019t like the idea of paying the bill.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fqti3",
                    "author": "jak72",
                    "body": "You argue that need-based beats reparations. I argue that while need-based clearly has merit, reparations cannot be replaced by need-based because all black people were set back in many ways and thus deserve a boost forward EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT POOR. \n\nYou define reparations as payments for the mistreatment of your ancestors not of yourself. The problem is, the mistreatment of black ancestors has set black people back today. Maybe Jack would be rich if Jack's dad with top law school grades was able to be hired by the top law firm. Or if Jack's dad was able to get into law school. Because he was not, Jack doesn't get the head start an upper middle class rich-ish kid would get. And because of that, Jack goes to worse grade schools and doesnt see black people in white collar jobs (esp his dad) so doesnt identify with that lifestyle, doesnt pursue it as readily, and suddenly his potential has shrunk greatly.\n\nIn short, black people have been moved 50 meters behind the starting line generations ago. Then, eventually, the laws and attitudes changed to today, where subtle racism (and rare overt racism) still exists in the US but generally speaking no one is being denied jobs, housing, service, etc for being black. The key is this: when we removed the laws that put them 50 meters back, we left them wherever they were. We did not move them forward whatsoever, nevermind forward 50 meters to where they would be without the racist restrictions on them. \n\nJack's son, present day, can be whatever he wants. But he too does not have all the advantages that he wouldve had, had Jack's dad not been held back generations ago. It seems entirely reasonable to me that Jack's son receive some form of reparations to, for example, get him into a better grade school. A school which he theoretically would have been attending anyway, had his grandpa had the opportunity he should have had. Or maybe it's about going from a good school to a great school! Some black people are not poor, but all suffered being moved back, and thus all deserve to be moved forward to compensate for this. \n\nNote, that doesnt mean re-litigating anything. What it means it trying to give them a boost to balance the setbacks the gov caused them. The lucky ones who have really thrived since then should not be disentitled from compensation for these imposed setbacks just because they managed to have some success. It is fair to assume that without the setbacks, the lucky ones would be even further along, so in making things right the gov has a duty to help them get back where they would be. \n\nThis all comes from the principle of paying for the wrongs you caused. Lucky ones were still wronged (by basically having generations of forced poverty, lack of education, etc until recently) and thus still must be compensated EVEN THOUGH they recovered well from the wrong. If you are shot, narrowly avoid dying, and go on to become a super fit triathlete, you still get compensated for bodily harm caused to you in spite of the fact that you recovered from that wrong well. Here, you might say the wrong was passed down to you instead of hitting you directly, but it still poisoned your family, your community, and these impacts still unmistakably affect your life in huge ways. That deserves compensation. \n\nFinal note -- it isnt even about some utilitarian \"we have to help the disadvantaged black people bc theyre so poor etc\" philosophy. As I've said, they may not be poor. It is simply about making up for putting black people 50 meters back.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jp66d",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I think that \"need-based\" was the wrong word because it implies helping only the poor.  I probably should have said \"wealth transfers based on current wealth levels\".  (Where I'm using \"wealth\" loosely to include current income and projected earnings, etc.)\n\nIn other words, if two groups of people are working equally hard, but due to the disadvantaged circumstances that the first group grew up in, the people in the first group make $70K a year and the people in the second group make $130K a year, \"wealth transfers\" could include transfers from the second group to the first group, even though the first group is not \"poor\".\n\nI'm just saying \"the first group\" should be defined by the disadvantaged circumstances that *they personally* faced.  People of any race should be eligible and it should not include payback for things that happened before they were born.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7fqti3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gkjq2",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Generational wealth disparity is the issue behind the call for reparations. Not current wealth disparity.\r  \n\r  \nIt is arguable that no amount of money can ever repay the Native American tribes and nations for the genocide and degradations they endured. But the resulting effect of being forced onto the worst land for farming, being denied access to markets and commerce, being denied education, being denied access to their own culture and language, all sits at the root of why the numerous social and financial issues facing Native Americans today. The land alone stolen from these people through the intentional breaking of treaties they made in good faith is worth trillions of dollars today.\r  \n\r  \nThat land is still there. The people are still here. And the impact of that forced transfer of wealth at the point of a gun remains.\r  \n\r  \nSaying \"oh, here's some welfare to compensate you for being poor -- now go do something with yourself\" coming from people who are sitting on literally more wealth than the GDP of most nations of their stolen land and benefiting daily from access to that property is beyond insulting. And totally fails to understand the issues at hand.\r  \n\r  \nSimilar things can be said about African-Americans, and other minorities who were exploited then intentionally denied the ability to succeed for generations upon generations so that white Americans could become extremely wealthy by comparison.\r  \n\r  \nI get the average lower-middle class white family doesn't think they personally benefitted, so they don't see why they should personally pay anything. But that's looking at things the wrong way. This isn't about injustice to a specific individual committed to another specific individual. This is about crimes against humanity committed by white society against other cultures for the expressed purpose of enriching the white culture at the expense of the minority cultures.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gtjpe",
                    "author": "fox-mcleod",
                    "body": "What if I\u2019m rich despite my ancestors objectively being exploited?\n\nHow is it just that the people who took our property get to keep it?",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7h0ygz",
                    "author": "substantial-freud",
                    "body": "The people who took your property are dead.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7gtjpe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gua86",
                    "author": "cherflugen",
                    "body": "Whether a policy makes sense or not is entirely dependent on the goals it aims to achieve. Depending on the goal both could make more sense than the other. If the goal is well being in the utilitarian sense which it seems your argument assumes, then I would agree with you, but from what I can tell reparations isn\u2019t utilitarian it\u2019s primarily about justice. It is about the US government correcting a historical wrong it created. Under these circumstances reparations clearly makes more sense.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jml4b",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "I agree that is apparently the goal, I just think that concept of \"justice\" falls apart under scrutiny, if the real victims are dead, and you're just trying to give money to people who are not the victims, but just biologically descended from them.  Suppose that instead of being the victims of a crime, your ancestors were the perpetrators.  Should you be punished instead of compensated?  If that logic doesn't work for punishment, why should it work for victimhood compensation?\n\nThat's why I prefer the utilitarian approach of just helping people who need it now.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7gua86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7h44ez",
                    "author": "ywoslo",
                    "body": "The big problem is that there is always intense opposition to any kind of policy designed to create greater economic equality. Being rich inherently gives you more political influence, and almost all rich people are obviously going to be opposed to sharing their wealth with others.\n\nIn reality, either reparations for slavery or a broader shift towards economic equality will be extremely hard to achieve. Telling people who are campaigning for the former that they should campaign for the latter is a bit like telling a firefighter who is trying and failing to put out a small part of a fire that they should instead focus on putting out the entire fire at once.\n\nThough another factor is that slavery reparations are something that wealthy Black people can get behind - in fact, wealthy people in general can get behind it, knowing that it doesn't threaten their wealth in the same way that a broader shift towards something like socialism would.\n\n> Practically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.\n\nMany countries have done this to some extent, but most of them continue to allow the rich to access their own elite medical and educational institutions, and people constantly have to campaign to maintain public funding for state schools and hospitals. There isn't a quick fix to economic inequality. It seems to be an eternal struggle.\n\nI also think you're ignoring the complicated interplay between economic and non-economic forms of inequality and prejudice, and that they both seem to reinforce each other. The higher poverty rates among ethnic minority groups aren't purely down to the lack of inherited wealth: they're also down to the prejudice and discrimination that members of those groups have faced themselves. But of course, much of that prejudice ultimately stems from their ancestors being poor. There is an argument that creating economic equality between races could help to rapidly reduce those other forms of prejudice.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jnkme",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "Well if you're asking whether it's easy to sell the public on \"reparations\" or \"inequality-reducing wealth transfer\", it seems the obvious question is \"how much in reparations\" vs. \"how much in inequality-reducing wealth transfer\".\n\nSo assume you're talking about shifting the same amount of money.  On the one hand, yes reparations may have more support from some rich Black people (but less than you might think - richer Black Americans are more likely to skew conservative, and even if they didn't, they might think it was just a bad look to be asking for reparations!).  On the other hand, I think this would be outweighed by the fact that reparations are morally harder to defend than wealth transfers to help the poor.\n\nSo I posit that for given fixed amount of money, inequality-reducing wealth transfers would be easier to sell politically than reparations.  Do you think that's not the case?",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7h44ez"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7iazfk",
                    "author": "BenefitOfTheDoubt_01",
                    "body": "You can't rectify a past injustice with a future injustice. \n\nReparations is just straight up racist bullshit. It's the same argument used to support policies treating races differently (affirmative action). I grew up on the value that your supposed to treat everyone equally regardless of what they look like. I will not accept a fucking penny from my neighbor just because their skin color is different from mine. That is morally repugnant.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7jiyzy",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "OK, although I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing, since I said I was arguing for an alternative to reparations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7iazfk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7innv7",
                    "author": "humbleprotector",
                    "body": "If any of the family members of the recipient have committed a violent crime than all of that families reparation money should go to the victim of that crime. It only makes sense",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7lfnp6",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": "I think universal basic income is a better answer to this underlying problem than either needs-based or race-based assistance. If the fundamental issue you're working to resolve is the degree to which generational wealth produces unevenness of opportunity in a society, than providing everyone with an equal economic floor is going to be the most straightforward and effective way of getting that done.\n\nWith that said, I think your objection to reparations comes from a different perspective as my own, and from a bit of a misunderstanding of how reparations function:\n\n* Reparations come from institutions, not from individuals -- e.g.,, they're a payment made by a nation, for crimes that it committed against another nation or group of people. \n* Since the US is the same state that perpetrated / benefited from slavery, the argument that nobody alive participated is moot; if reparations were to be paid, the payer is the same in 2023 as it would have been in 1823.\n* The major challenge is that the entities and individuals that the USA *harmed* are not still in existence. There is no African state that the US damaged via the slave trade, as none of them existed then. Similarly, there are no US citizens that the US committed crimes against via the slave trade, because:\n   * The thing they did was not, at the time, a crime\n   * The people they committed the crime against were not, at the time, citizens\n\nIf the goal is to combat inequality, reparations aren't a particularly useful way of doing it; if it's to settle damages caused by unlawful conduct by the US government (ie, what reparations are for), then there's no party with standing, and the actions in question were legal at the time.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7shid4",
                    "author": "Proud-Dot4915",
                    "body": "I agree that the poor in general should be helped. I personally think it's inappropriate for black people today to exploit slaves of the past for money. However, the problem is that this push for \"reparations\" isn't about class or poverty. Rather, it's motivated by tribalism. You'd be surprised how many rich African Americans like BET founder Robert Johnson want free \"reparations\" money too.",
                    "date": "2023-02-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7tn9u9",
                    "author": "whovillehoedown",
                    "body": "There is no way to fix wage disparities without factoring in slavery, jim crow, etc. That's not possible because of how those things impacted the black community and actively structured the systems we have in place that run America's economy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8acxga",
                    "author": "SingleMaltMouthwash",
                    "body": "Why one or the other? They are not mutually exclusive. \n\nAs a society, surely it is in all of our interest to make the best possible education available to anyone who is capable and ambitious enough to take advantage of it. Surely it is in all our interests to so arrange opportunity to maximize upward social and economic mobility for everyone.\n\nAt the same time, 200 (slavery and Jim Crow) years of excluding non-white Americans from the same employment, wages, bank loans, schools, land grants, military rank and specialty, state and federal economic and business programs, GI loans and grants, scholarships and professional opportunities has had lingering effects upon those communities that a developed sense of morality and justice would trouble us to correct.",
                    "date": "2023-02-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10uudh3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "\\[In all cases, I'm using \"reparations\" to refer to compensation to things that happened to *your ancestors*.  I'm not talking about things that happened to *you* in your lifetime.\\]\n\nYou could be poor because your ancestors were exploited.  (The average inherited wealth in white families is [9 or 10 times higher](https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2022/eb_22-49) than the average inherited wealth in Black families.)  But you could also be poor simply because your parents screwed up, or your parents (or you) had some unlucky breaks.  My moral intuition is that people in both situations deserve the same amount of help; one is not more deserving than the other just because their ancestors were victims of horrific abuse.\n\nConversely, you could be rich because your ancestors were the ones doing the exploiting, but you could also be rich because you or your parents made some lucky investments, or some other reason.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you're guilty of anything, but we don't tax people out of spite; if we're going to give financial assistance to the poor, it might as well come from taxing the rich.  And morally I don't see a good reason for punishing one person more because of what their ancestors did.\n\nIn other words, need-based wealth transfer makes more moral sense to me than \"reparations\" for things that nobody currently alive was responsible for.  Even if an entire community is poor due to the nation's history of racism, the whole community will still be eligible for help under a need-based system; you don't need to invoke a theory of settling scores for things that happened in the 1800s.\n\nPractically, by focusing on need-based aid, you can achieve part of that by providing general-purpose programs that disproportionately benefit the poor, like free health care and free education.  On the other hand, re-litigating horrific crimes that happened before anyone alive today was even born, as a justification for \"reparations\", risks making present-day white and Black people feel subconsciously as if they were the perpetrators or victims of those crimes -- potentially traumatizing to all parties, and obviously false.\n\nJust help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\np.s. I did read [Ta-Nehisi Coates's \"The Case For Reparations\"](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) but I don't think it modifies this argument.  He talks about compensation to people who are still living, to things that happened to them personally (comparing to, for example, reparations to Jews paid by Germany), and I think that's appropriate.  He also talks about the lingering economic inequalities due to slavery and other forms of past discrimination, but that's why I'm saying need-based aid would address those issues directly, without making it about compensation for the crimes of previous generations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-05",
                    "score": 227,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: need-based financial assistance makes more sense than \"reparations\" for things that happened before you were born",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10uudh3/cmv_needbased_financial_assistance_makes_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j994onp",
                    "author": "mydikizlong",
                    "body": "Just help all the poor people.  CMV.\n\n'poor people' can help themselves by working, saving, investing in their future...\n\nTaxation is theft by definition.\n\nIn \\[a\\]merica, EVERYONE is now free to work, save, and invest. And they have been for nearly a hundred years.\n\n'poor people' in \\[a\\]merica are poor 'mostly' because of their own choices.\n\nI am poor. I've worked and saved, and worked and saved, and worked...\n\nAll the while, plans that 'help the poor' have stolen half of everything I've ever earned...\n\nAND, the 'poor' are driving escalades, they all have sail foams, air jordans, freezers full of hot pockets, tattoos on every inch of their body, jewelry, a flat screen t.v. in every room, free food, free health care, free housing, free education, free heat, free needles, free crack pipes, free wi-fi, tax credits...\n\nAnd I have none of that even though I've been working my whole life.\n\nThis is capitalism baby. Work or die.\n\nI may not be able to change your view today but maybe if you work your arse off for 40 years and end up with nothing to show for it; that may be a step in the right direction.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10uudh3"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10v5cak",
                "author": "physioworld",
                "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                "date": "2023-02-06",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7fhvhi",
                "author": "Feroc",
                "body": "> The primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance\n\nThe question would be: Why do some people don't want to hear anything about trans people anymore?\n\nLike if it's because they don't think that they should have the same rights everywhere or don't agree with some new proposed rules, then a \"just agree with us\" argument wouldn't really work.",
                "date": "2023-02-06",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "10v5cak"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7fj644",
                "author": "physioworld",
                "body": "!delta \n\nI\u2019m primarily aiming this at the people who don\u2019t really care much but think \u201cwhy do we talk so much about trans people?\u201d As I have a few of those in my family. \n\nGenuine bigots who hate trans people won\u2019t be persuaded.",
                "date": "2023-02-06",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7fhvhi"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7fj7cv",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Feroc ([41\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Feroc)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-06",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7fj644"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fi7qp",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "I would argue most people who want to stop talking about trans people are already LGBT allies.\n\nThey want to stop talking about the issues because the solutions to everything that isn't \"should young children transition without parental consent\" or \"should trans women be able to crush other women in professional sports\" have been pretty clearly solved.\n\nAllies want to stop talking about it because the primary arguments against trans rights and acceptance are tired, boring, and dumb.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fjd2o",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "There\u2019s a few people in my family who regularly moan about \u201cthe trans issue\u201d and think it gets too much airtime. They\u2019re not actively anti trans, they just don\u2019t really care and I try to point out to them that the airtime the issue gets is a direct response to societal unwillingness treat trans people fairly so naturally their voices get louder.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7fi7qp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fiylw",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "I'm pretty sure the best way to get people to stop talking about any topic is to talk more about a different topic.  If someone's primary goal was to not hear about trans issues, taking a stand on trans issues would be contrary to that goal.  Instead, talking about some other issue (BLM?  Taxes?  Capital punishment?  Global climate change?  Moroccan genocide in Western Sahara? Etc etc) would more effectively move their conversations.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fjguh",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "I\u2019m referring to ways to shift the broader cultural conversation, not just how to prevent a single individual from talking about the topic in their lives.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7fiylw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fj4pu",
                    "author": "KidCharlemagneII",
                    "body": "Isn't this just the equivalent of saying \"If you don't like cake, eat all the cake so there's no more cake\"? \n\nThe whole point of people wanting society to stop discussing trans rights is that they're tired of the discussion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fjnd4",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "No it\u2019s more like \u201cif you want to stop hearing about cake advocates from advocating cake then stop trying to block the rights of cake advocates\u201d. \n\nMy view is that the discussion only has the traction it has precisely because people are trying to prevent trans rights and so trans people and their allies naturally push harder and louder.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j7fj4pu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fjwd9",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": ">i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nI think it is because regressive reactionaries always need a group to scapegoat for the ills of the world, but vanilla gay people have managed to gain enough social clout that blatantly attacking them like they did in the 70s and 80s doesn't work any more. So, they moved onto the smaller, less visible, and by their nature \"just hoping to blend in\" group and started attacking them using the exact same complaints that they used to use against gay people, just dressed up in drag.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fkiog",
                    "author": "Chany_the_Skeptic",
                    "body": "I don't see how your view isn't, in effect, a truism. \"If Group A agreed with Group B, there wouldn't be any disagreement or discussion.\" This is obvious. We have disagreement specifically because people don't agree on trans issues. There are people who don't think trans people are valid, and expecting everyone to get on board overnight is foolish. For many people, trans people and all the other nonconforming identities pretty much sprang up overnight. Yes, they existed before, but in the popular consciousness, trans people were an oddity that you made jokes about in comedy shows. To go from that to complete acceptance, with potential legal changes to back it up, is pretty hard for the average Joe to understand. With someone who is gay, lesbian, or bi, a regular person has a framework of their own sexuality to relate to. Most cisgender people have no real way to frame their gender identity as a similiar feeling because most people don't really \"feel\" their gender or really think about it. So, in a sense, some disagreement is healthy and expected. Some of it is just bigotry and based in a utter refusal to conceive of something outside their worldview, but some of it is based in genuine confusion and a lack of proper arguments from the other side.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fl0gd",
                    "author": "Giblette101",
                    "body": "I don't think OP's position is concerned with the essence of disagreement. It seems more directed towards those that bemoan the prominence of transgender issues in the public consciousness while simultaneously opposing its mainstreaming.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7fkiog"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fqbwu",
                    "author": "scottevil110",
                    "body": "You are using very broad and vague terms in here that are a big part of why the debate continues to rage on as strongly as it does. \n\n\"Support trans rights\" -  What does that mean? Which rights? Literally any right that anyone can dream up? Some pre-defined set of rights? It's a phrase that carries basically no useful meaning to a conversation. \n\n\"Acceptance\" - To do what? Exist? Something else? \n\nA lot of the reason that society is still \"talking about trans people\" is because it's difficult to get a lot of people to enumerate exactly what they want. And it's likewise difficult to make any progress when everything is considered all or nothing. Most of the people that you're accusing of being \"bigots who hate trans people\" probably DO agree with like 98% of what you're calling \"trans rights\". But when you're willing to latch on to that 2% and use it to call them bigots, then I wouldn't expect the conversation to end anytime soon.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fsw6i",
                    "author": "Intelligent-Case4394",
                    "body": "Since the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and civil unions have we heard more or less about gay people? \n\nThere's your answer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fuq75",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Honestly less I think, though I can\u2019t speak to that since I wasn\u2019t really plugged into the conversation pre DADT",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7fsw6i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fvklz",
                    "author": "chemguy216",
                    "body": "I know you already awarded a delta, but I would posit another line of reasoning that may further change your view. If everyone became allies, they would still need to talk about and with trans people. No demographic group is 100% on the same page on what all their issues are and how to resolve those issues. I highly doubt you\u2019d get trans people like Caitlyn Jenner and Blair White to agree with trans people like Laverne Cox and Jessie Gender to agree on the exact same problems and solutions.\n\nIf you have a thorough knowledge of the intracommunity discourse, you are, in essence, engaging in conversation, even passively, about trans people and trans issues. And you are doing so to see what trans people are saying, which segment of the community is exercising more sway on a given topic, and which segments are being overlooked. Based on that information, each person then has to decide which faction of trans people might have the best path forward to their overall wellbeing.\n\nSo yeah, being an involved ally still requires talking about trans people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7fxyrq",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "I just mean that the conversation and the attention it gets would die down to a level more appropriate for a community which makes up such a small segment of the population.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7fvklz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ghvqk",
                    "author": "laconicflow",
                    "body": "Of course Trans people are people. My problem is that I don't believe atrans man is a man nor that a trans woman is a woman. Outside of that, I want them to have all the rights that other American citizens have. But, in situations where I think my opinion can provide counterpoint, or when it's asked for, I'll give it, and we're still talking about Trans people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7heh2v",
                    "author": "DzRythen",
                    "body": "Alright so I am a trans women and while I don't want to go off topic in the spirit of this subreddit I would like to share my perspective as to why trans women are women. Plus I just talked about this with someone else so I already have it written out. (Sorry if that's not allowed here, new to this subreddit.)\n\nSEX and GENDER are two different concepts and are not synonymous. \n\nSEX refers to physical attributes such as your reproductive organs, secondary sex characteristics, chromosomes and hormone makeup. SEX exists on a bimodal spectrum, The majority of people exist on on either extreme. Some people are not when they are born, these people are called intersex and exist somewhere in the middle. When a transgender person takes the sex hormones of their gender it moves them on that spectrum and changes them dramatically, calling them the same as their sex assigned at birth would be innacurate. They'll never be the same as cisgendered people of their gender, but their alot closer to them after a few years of hormones than to the sex they were assigned at birth. Trans people post hormones exist a bit in the middle such as intersex people. \n\nGENDER can be broken down into two further concepts. GENDER IDENTITY and GENDER PRESENTATION.  \n\nGENDER PRESENTATION refers to all of the social aspects such as the clothes you wear, the hair styles you choose, the expectations placed on someone who is perceived as either a man or woman. The words that are applicable here are Masculine and Feminine. You can be Female and Masculine and be Male and Feminine. This exists on a spectrum and everyone has their own meaning as to how their gender effects their daily lives.\n\nGENDER IDENTITY refers to someone's inate feeling as to which SEX and GENDER they belong to. People are born with this and there is nothing anyone can do to change it. Most people's GENDER IDENTITY align with their assigned sex at birth, Trans people do not. Being a Man or a Woman refers to someone's GENDER IDENTITY. It is self identified, a trans woman is a woman because that's what her gender is. \n\nSo to be clear when I say a trans women is a women I am not saying they are the same as cisgender women. But they are women because they share the same GENDER IDENTITY as cisgender women. They do not share the same sex, but as I explained earlier after hormone treatment it gets a little more complicated. Calling a trans women a biological male for instance just medically would not be accurate. \n\nI hope that clears things up, if you still disagree please feel free to explain why. (Oh and all this applies to trans men too, just obviously I have more experience talking about trans women.)",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7ghvqk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gvpdl",
                    "author": "Swampbearder",
                    "body": "I am not going to support anti biological claims, made up terms, or crazy shout down matches.... Get ready to apologize to all the sterilized gay people.... Trans activist are basically monsters... 80%",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7gxm7y",
                    "author": "quiet___thinker",
                    "body": "> If calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nDid you know that the majority of young people who seek gender affirming care nowadays are girls with other mental conditions? That the biggest barrier is the wait times to get an assessment because so many people are flooding the clinics? That pretty much everyone that *gets* an assessment is told that they\u2019re trans to the point that some clinics don\u2019t know if they\u2019ve ever said otherwise? That the drop-out rates are severely underreported and even bringing up the topic can get you labelled transphobic?\n\nBecause this is why I want the topic to go away. I\u2019m pretty sure I\u2019m witnessing one of the great scandals of our time.\n\nFeel free to provide any studies that you think say the opposite. I guarantee you that none exist.",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7l4lsc",
                    "author": "Arthesia",
                    "body": ">Feel free to provide any studies that you think say the opposite. I guarantee you that none exist\n\nMakes claims. Provides no evidence. Demands other people prove them wrong.",
                    "date": "2023-02-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7gxm7y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10v5cak",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "Basically, i think that the main reason there is so much conversation about trans people who ultimately make up a very small % of the population, is because of the push back they get in trying to attain equal rights and medical care to help them transition.\n\nIf calls to allow more gender affirming healthcare, therapy for those who are experiencing gender dysphoria etc were met with empathy and a willingness to see trans people as people not predators then we wouldn't be neck deep in posts about trans issues the whole time because those issues would stop existing, trans people would just be allowed to exist, which is what they want.\n\nOf course in every group there will always be people who will shout from the rooftops for attention but my view is that this is a minority and the primary reason why it can feel that trans issues are over-represented in the media/cultural landscape is precisely because of the people who are anti-trans, not because of the trans people themselves.\n\nThe primary way you could change my view on this issue, is if you can show that trans people and their allies actually primarily want attention, not acceptance",
                    "date": "2023-02-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If people want society to stop talking about trans people, they should become trans allies and support advocacy for trans rights",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10v5cak/cmv_if_people_want_society_to_stop_talking_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jgol7mo",
                    "author": "Wise_Examination7489",
                    "body": "Something I find so funny about this is back in 2019 when someone responded with all lives matter to Black Lives Matter, it was \u201cwe can\u2019t focus on all lives until people of color are on equal footing\u201d which is reasonable but what I don\u2019t find reasonable is that you people don\u2019t seem to take this into account, we can\u2019t just add trans people to the equation when actual biological women are still regularly facing prejudice. If white people can not override the blm movement then trans people can\u2019t override the women\u2019s rights movement. Maybe or maybe you won\u2019t  counter with something along the lines of \u201cwhat about trans men\u201d same shit. Why do people take you guys seriously, I mean it\u2019s like taking a clowns act to heart.",
                    "date": "2023-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10v5cak"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10ydtjz",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7xijfz",
                "author": "PickledPickles310",
                "body": "Let's say I come home and see someone stabbing my wife to death. As I get closer he sees me approach and turns around, throws his knife on the ground, and runs. \n\nI shoot him, in the back, and kill him. I wasn't defending my wife at this point, the threat was gone. I also wasn't in danger. He didn't have a knife on him anymore and he wasn't a threat to me.\n\n​\n\nShould I spend the rest of my life in prison?",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 13,
                "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7xxvd2",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "Ok fair, with enough provocation armed violence is understandable. I don't think you'd be a danger to society. !delta",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "j7xijfz"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7xxxai",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/PickledPickles310 ([7\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/PickledPickles310)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7xxvd2"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xipsh",
                    "author": "ThuliumNice",
                    "body": "This is a deeply unpopular opinion of mine, but I think some murders should be given circumstantial leniency.\n\nFor example, there are cases of sex trafficking victims who murdered the person responsible for trafficking them even if it wasn't self defense.  \n\nAdditionally, sometimes abuse victims will decide they've had enough and murder their partner even in situations where it wasn't self defense.\n\nI think these crimes are very different than (for example) lynching a racial minority or raping and murdering someone.\n\nI think there are also some cases where people murder their partner's affair partner.  I don't think that's ok, but I don't necessarily think that you should go to jail forever for killing the person who your wife or husband betrayed you with.\n\nI think some violent crimes do deserve life in prison without parole.  If you killed someone who didn't deserve it, it's not fair that you later get to live your life and be free while they're dead.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xitvr",
                    "author": "Vesurel",
                    "body": "Do you think prisons as they currently are do an adaquate job of keeping prisoners safe?\n\nBecause I think any conversation that starts with 'more people should be in prison for longer'. Needs to include consideration for whether or not prison in general is a good idea. \n\nMore specifically, do you think rape should be part of the punishment for attempted murder?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xj6io",
                    "author": "ThuliumNice",
                    "body": "We should do more to keep prisons safe.  Nobody in a prison should be raped, regardless of what they have done.\n\nBut the safety of violent criminals should be considered less of a priority than the safety of society at large.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xitvr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xj2wc",
                    "author": "Dyeeguy",
                    "body": "Some violent criminals are released and no longer commit violent crimes, they are no longer a danger",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ycd6k",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Some, but not all, so every release carries a risk of a repeat crime being committed",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xj2wc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xj4jm",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "If you don't mean any violent crime it sure is weird that your title doesn't make that distinction.\n\nIn any event, if you make rape, kidnapping, attempted murder, and armed assault have the same punishment as murder, then anyone who commits one of those crimes has absolutely no reason not to murder the victim. They're gonna get punished the same either way, so why not take the safest option with the least amount of evidence?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ycpl0",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">If you don't mean any violent crime it sure is weird that your title doesn't make that distinction\n\nAs I said in my post, there's little space for nuance in a title. Honestly the fact that you've opened with criticism of my title makes me doubt that I'll be able to have an intellectual, civil debate with you, and as I'm not interested in an argument, I'll bid you a good day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xj4jm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xjdkm",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nI think these crimes you listed perfectly demonstrates why life in prison shouldn't be the default. Notice that excluding murder, every crime here has the potential of the victim surviving. However, the survival of the victim also drastically increases the chance of the criminal getting away scott-free.\n\nIf the default sentence for rape is life. Then might as well silence the victim permanently as it's the same sentence and it decreases the risk of you getting caught.\n\nAnd this can even work the other way. If the sentence for rape is automatic life. Then the rape convictions will get that much harder as people will be much less likely to convict due to the harsh sentence making rape essentially unprovable in court.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 37,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xkthd",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "This is actually a pretty good argument. I spent 15 minutes trying to get ChatGPT to come up with a counter.\n\nThe best thing it came up with is that if you murder someone. There will be a much more thorough investigation. So while the punishment is almost identical. The likely hood of you getting caught is much higher. Murder is treated by a separate department that is prioritized in the police budget. Murder never expires.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xjdkm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xka33",
                    "author": "automatic_mismatch",
                    "body": "If someone rapes someone and knows they will go to jail for life if they are caught, why wouldn\u2019t they just murder them? Same punishment either way, but now you don\u2019t have anyone who can report.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xlnds",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Where are you going to put all these people? Prisons are overcrowded now, we can't remotely do that.\n\nAlso, don't you think making any crime like that punishable by life in prison you;d just be encouraging people to murder their victims or commit worse crimes, because what's the difference in sentencing, so might as well try to destroy a witness.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ydyps",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "I'll just respond to the first part as others have already commented the second part.\n\nIn all honesty, violent people living in more overcrowded conditions so that innocent people can be more safe is a trade-off I'm okay with.\n\nAlso, more prisons can be built- that's one of the things taxes are for",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7xlnds"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xmapq",
                    "author": "MrT_in_ID",
                    "body": "There's two reasons why someone would be deemed a threat to society: there's something inherently wrong with them making them a danger to society or are a victim of circumstance.\n\nIf it's the former it's not really the dangerous person's fault. They have something wrong mentally and struggle as a result.\n\nIf it's the latter then we can rehabilitate them and safely return them to society absent the circumstances that made them dangerous.\n\nIn either case punishment isn't the answer. The answer, no matter the severity of the crime, is either rehabilitation with the intent of release or providing a safe, healthy place for them to get the psychiatric help that they need.\n\nAlso if you punish murder the same way you punish other violent crimes you incentivize murder. If a person rapes someone they'll be incentivized to murder the victim to increase their chances of getting away with the crime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ye9vq",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "My focus isn't punishment, it's on the safety of the innocent.\n\nI think circumstance can justify theft or drug trafficking, but not violence.\n\nAs for mental illness, a psych ward is probably the best place for them. There definitely needs to be more done along the lines of affordable mental health services and early intervention, but once someone has reached a point where they are committing extremely violent crimes, then life in a psych ward or even a prison is better than exposing innocents to them",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7xmapq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xmtgt",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "> The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nPutting aside the issues others have raised around charging all these crimes the same giving incentive to murder in more situations. Why is armed assault in with these. It is certainly a violent crime, but to act as if it is the same level of evil as murder, rape and kidnapping is absurd to me. \n\nThe other problem is cost of course. Speaking as an American, we already have the largest prison population in the world. Where will we find the space for all these lifetime appointments now?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yew80",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "My goal is safety, not punishment, so in suggesting the same sentence I'm not suggesting equal evilness. I'm simply suggesting that people that attack others with weapons shouldn't be let loose in society.\n\nAs for cost, it is an issue but I think the issue of safety outweighs it. Idealistically, I'm all for increased taxation of the rich and/or reduced incarceration for drug crimes to offset the cost. Realistically, I expect that any government that went ahead with drastic sentence increases would also budget more taxation funds towards the justice system. I also feel that the increased expense wouldn't be quite as much as one might initially think, as there would be less logistics, transport, court time etc involved in repeat offenses",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xmtgt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xrsu5",
                    "author": "golden_eyed_cat",
                    "body": "There are a few reasons why I believe that sentencing someone to life in prison for comitting a violent crime is a bad idea: \n\n1. Just because a punishment for a crime is harsher, doesn't mean that less people commit it. The reason for that, is because, when someone is breaking a law, they often assume that they will not get caught, and therefore punished for their offence. In some cases, such as being under the influence of drugs or emotions, criminals don't even think about getting caught when they are comitting a crime.\n\n2. In many places, prisons are already overpopulated, and running them is quite expensive. If we give criminals longer sentences, we will have to invest more money into feeding, clothing, as well as guarding them, and that money could be used elsewhere to benefit society.\n\n3. While punishing criminals is important, resocializing them is much more beneficial for society as a whole. The reason for that, is it reduces crime rates, allows us to allocate less money to running prisons (since there are less criminals serving sentences in them), as well as increases the amount of productive citizens, which is beneficial for the economy. Countries that give criminals milder sentences, and focus on turning them back into upstanding members of society such as Norway, have much lower crime rates than places where the main goal of prisons is to punish those that break the law.\n\n4. This ties into my previous point. By sentencing all people that commit violent crimes to life in prison, we are taking away their incentive to redeem themselves, and in turn, potentially limiting the amount of productive members of society. In return, violent criminals that have no way of making up for their mistakes, could try to escape from prison to commit even more crimes, get into fights with other inmates, and do their best to make the guards' jobs as unpleasant as possible. After all, their punishment will not get any worse, so they might as well do so.\n\n5. In many cases, there are mitigating circumstances for committed crimes, and giving those that have such circumstances the same punishment that criminals with no mitigating circumstances is unfair, as well as the reason why laws allow some flexibility when it comes to giving criminals punishments. After all, should a child that was abused by their parent for several years that eventually snapped, attacked their abuser in an attempt to beat them up and accidentally ended up killing them, get the same sentence as a psychopath that killed a teenager in a brutal way for their own amusement?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82cz8b",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">Just because a punishment for a crime is harsher, doesn't mean that less people commit it.\n\nThis wasn't my reasoning. I don't think the longer sentences would act as a deterrent, I think they would prevent repeat crimes \n\n>Countries that give criminals milder sentences, and focus on turning them back into upstanding members of society such as Norway, have much lower crime rates than places where the main goal of prisons is to punish those that break the law\n\nDo you have a source for this?\n\nAs for people redeeming themselves and becoming positive members of society, honestly I think that some people are just irredeemable",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7xrsu5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y2pcj",
                    "author": "gothicgamelabs",
                    "body": "The problem with life in prison is that it makes people do worse things. Think about it: if you committed a crime that is going to get you the maximum sentence, why wouldn't you just keep going? Kill the cops, steal their car, drive down the street running over civilians like it's a video game. If you're already going to jail forever, you have nothing to lose.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y3cc0",
                    "author": "BigT9991",
                    "body": "Not if there's a god given reason \ud83d\udcaf",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yazh8",
                    "author": "Chris_3213",
                    "body": "The debate here is about the purpose of jail. Is it retribution, or correction? If retribution, then why stop at jail for life? Horrific crimes could be punished in other horrific ways - and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But if jail is about correcting societally deviant behavior, then lifetime sentences become a moot point - that\u2019s not what it\u2019s about",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82dxvh",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Neither, I think the main purpose of jail is/should be safety - protecting the innocent from violent criminals",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yazh8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yb8hv",
                    "author": "LimbicLogic",
                    "body": "Really think about the title of this OP: violent *crimes* should get life in prison.\n\nYes, all violent criminal behavior should be in prison.  The person behind those actions should have this tendency to be *shaped out of him* (spirituality, psychotherapy, community, etc. being the means of shaping) in this same prison, and he should serve a time until that shaping is up. \n\nThat's what rehabilitation actually looks like.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82e0gb",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "I don't think murderers and rapists CAN be rehabilitated",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yb8hv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ydoo0",
                    "author": "OmniManDidNothngWrng",
                    "body": "And what should prison be?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82e8iw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "What do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7ydoo0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yggfj",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> My view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people.\n> \n> A caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThe problem here is known as the creation of a \"[perverse incentive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive)\". Some people have already brought it up in different words, but you haven't fully addressed it.\n\nSomeone who has committed a sufficiently violent crime (under your definition) would then have no reason not to kill the victim and any other witnesses, since they know that if they get caught, they are already certain to get a life sentence anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yn7f8",
                    "author": "TyrantExterminator",
                    "body": "I don't agree at all and let me explain why:  \n\n\n1. What makes you think that the gov have the authority to essentially kill the person?  \n\n2. People can change, and 20 years might not seem much but 20 years is about 1/4 of the average lifetime, and besides if they get out at that point, their life will be very rough.  \n\n3. Even though you said it: Innocent people will still get convicted  \n\n4. The cost of keeping an inmate is not cheap at all...  \n\n5. No one would want the job of overseeing a prison where no one is getting out - would be a daily bloodbath...  \n\n\nWhat would really change if you kept them locked up for so long? One person less in the streets, and then what? People will still murder, rape etc no matter what \"punishment\" exist.   \n\n\nOne thing that I am curious about though is how you view it when the govermnet commits violent crimes, ex a cop shoots a citizen or when the POTUS drop bombs in the middle east - should they too get life in prison, and how would you go about that?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82fp1o",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">1. What makes you think that the gov have the authority to essentially kill the person? \n\nThe democratic system\n\n>People can change\n\nSome people can somewhat change. Statistics about repeat crimes show that not enough violent criminals change for letting them out to be a safe thing to do\n\n>The cost of keeping an inmate is not cheap at all\n\nI lean towards negative utilitarianism - as in, the goal should be to reduce suffering. And by that I mean reduce the suffering of the person that's suffering most, not reduce average suffering. If more taxes are funnelled towards jail upkeep it'd mean less for hospitals, school etc, but I think extreme violence is probably one of the worst things a person can experience and mitigating it should be a high priority",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yn7f8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ytpk8",
                    "author": "NaturalCarob5611",
                    "body": "Say you've got a 19 year old who's strung out on drugs trying to get his next fix. He robs a convenience store, but nobody gets hurt. He gets arrested, convicted, goes to prison. In prison he gets off the drugs and gets cleaned up. He studies a trade so that he could be valuable on the outside. He mentors other prisoners to help them get clean and learn useful skills. 30 years later when the guy turns 50 and he's still clean, still a model inmate, do you really think he's dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to mingle with innocent people? Sure, maybe you put him on probation to make sure he stays clean once he's on the outside, but there are issues like drug abuse that can actually be solved within a lifetime to say someone isn't a threat any more.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82fshp",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">nobody gets hurt\n\nHow is this a violent crime?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7ytpk8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82hnsq",
                    "author": "Suspiciously_Flawed",
                    "body": "Every single ounce of research on this topic disagrees with you. Strong punishments do nothing to stop crime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8h6bwc",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Source?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j82hnsq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j88eaul",
                    "author": "RandomRecorder753",
                    "body": "1. 20 years in prison are a long time. Like 20 years alone is a long time when you consider that the average age of a murderer is between 20 and 30 ([https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201601/homicide-fact-age-matters](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201601/homicide-fact-age-matters)). But 20 years without freedom will feel a lot longer than that. So don't underestimate the gravity of such a sentence. From the perspective of someone that age, that probably is life in prison (as it is literally the length of their life (so far) behind bars). For people younger than that it's even longer and for people older than that, their life might actually end in prison because of that.\n\n2. People who commit violent crimes usually have a history of violence themselves and have been physically or mentally abused. Like what sane person stabs someone in the chest and tries to kill or even endangers a baby? That's not meant as a \"get out of jail free card\", but maybe locking people up and punishing people isn't the best answer either. Maybe one should offer better preventive care, reduce the violence in the system not increase it and call it \"justice\" and take good care of the victims instead of pretending a locked up perpetrator is the solution to the problem. Like the consequences of their deed will still be a problem, unless they are treated as well.\n\n3. You can't lock people up indefinitely. a) It's a blatant human rights violation and even if you don't care for those on the receiving end of it, you're still putting society in the position of a violent perpetrator which is not great and sets the mindset for even more human rights violations as you're already rationalizing to yourself how it's ok to mistreat people who are not in a position or posses a right to defend themselves.\n\n4. b) It's expensive to lock people up. Like if you take away their freedom you also take away their incentive to provide for themselves or to work on themselves and make this work for them. So you have a constantly violent and aggressive environment that makes it's own rules, takes up resources and doesn't produce others. And no again slavery, exploitation and other human rights abuses to prisoners are not a good idea... So what you end up with is given increasingly more money to the prison industrial complex without any benefit to anybody.\n\n5. So as you can't detain people indefinitely and don't plan to expect for a low number of exceptions where that might be necessary. You kinda have to make prisons better in rehabilitating people. Like teach them stuff that enables them to live a normal life after prison rather them teaching them hierarchies of violence, connections with the mob and just put their life on pause for 20 years and afterwards treat them as outcasts so that their only option is to pick up where they left...",
                    "date": "2023-02-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10ydtjz",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7xip4e",
                "author": "Superbooper24",
                "body": "What happens if it\u2019s a minor?",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7xycvt",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "Thats a fair point. I can think of situations in which a minor should get life in prison but can also think of situations in which their sentence should be reduced for their age. !delta",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "j7xip4e"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7xyfv3",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Superbooper24 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Superbooper24)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7xycvt"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xipsh",
                    "author": "ThuliumNice",
                    "body": "This is a deeply unpopular opinion of mine, but I think some murders should be given circumstantial leniency.\n\nFor example, there are cases of sex trafficking victims who murdered the person responsible for trafficking them even if it wasn't self defense.  \n\nAdditionally, sometimes abuse victims will decide they've had enough and murder their partner even in situations where it wasn't self defense.\n\nI think these crimes are very different than (for example) lynching a racial minority or raping and murdering someone.\n\nI think there are also some cases where people murder their partner's affair partner.  I don't think that's ok, but I don't necessarily think that you should go to jail forever for killing the person who your wife or husband betrayed you with.\n\nI think some violent crimes do deserve life in prison without parole.  If you killed someone who didn't deserve it, it's not fair that you later get to live your life and be free while they're dead.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xitvr",
                    "author": "Vesurel",
                    "body": "Do you think prisons as they currently are do an adaquate job of keeping prisoners safe?\n\nBecause I think any conversation that starts with 'more people should be in prison for longer'. Needs to include consideration for whether or not prison in general is a good idea. \n\nMore specifically, do you think rape should be part of the punishment for attempted murder?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xj6io",
                    "author": "ThuliumNice",
                    "body": "We should do more to keep prisons safe.  Nobody in a prison should be raped, regardless of what they have done.\n\nBut the safety of violent criminals should be considered less of a priority than the safety of society at large.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xitvr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xj2wc",
                    "author": "Dyeeguy",
                    "body": "Some violent criminals are released and no longer commit violent crimes, they are no longer a danger",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ycd6k",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Some, but not all, so every release carries a risk of a repeat crime being committed",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xj2wc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xj4jm",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "If you don't mean any violent crime it sure is weird that your title doesn't make that distinction.\n\nIn any event, if you make rape, kidnapping, attempted murder, and armed assault have the same punishment as murder, then anyone who commits one of those crimes has absolutely no reason not to murder the victim. They're gonna get punished the same either way, so why not take the safest option with the least amount of evidence?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ycpl0",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">If you don't mean any violent crime it sure is weird that your title doesn't make that distinction\n\nAs I said in my post, there's little space for nuance in a title. Honestly the fact that you've opened with criticism of my title makes me doubt that I'll be able to have an intellectual, civil debate with you, and as I'm not interested in an argument, I'll bid you a good day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xj4jm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xjdkm",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nI think these crimes you listed perfectly demonstrates why life in prison shouldn't be the default. Notice that excluding murder, every crime here has the potential of the victim surviving. However, the survival of the victim also drastically increases the chance of the criminal getting away scott-free.\n\nIf the default sentence for rape is life. Then might as well silence the victim permanently as it's the same sentence and it decreases the risk of you getting caught.\n\nAnd this can even work the other way. If the sentence for rape is automatic life. Then the rape convictions will get that much harder as people will be much less likely to convict due to the harsh sentence making rape essentially unprovable in court.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 37,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xkthd",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "This is actually a pretty good argument. I spent 15 minutes trying to get ChatGPT to come up with a counter.\n\nThe best thing it came up with is that if you murder someone. There will be a much more thorough investigation. So while the punishment is almost identical. The likely hood of you getting caught is much higher. Murder is treated by a separate department that is prioritized in the police budget. Murder never expires.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xjdkm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xka33",
                    "author": "automatic_mismatch",
                    "body": "If someone rapes someone and knows they will go to jail for life if they are caught, why wouldn\u2019t they just murder them? Same punishment either way, but now you don\u2019t have anyone who can report.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xlnds",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Where are you going to put all these people? Prisons are overcrowded now, we can't remotely do that.\n\nAlso, don't you think making any crime like that punishable by life in prison you;d just be encouraging people to murder their victims or commit worse crimes, because what's the difference in sentencing, so might as well try to destroy a witness.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ydyps",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "I'll just respond to the first part as others have already commented the second part.\n\nIn all honesty, violent people living in more overcrowded conditions so that innocent people can be more safe is a trade-off I'm okay with.\n\nAlso, more prisons can be built- that's one of the things taxes are for",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7xlnds"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xmapq",
                    "author": "MrT_in_ID",
                    "body": "There's two reasons why someone would be deemed a threat to society: there's something inherently wrong with them making them a danger to society or are a victim of circumstance.\n\nIf it's the former it's not really the dangerous person's fault. They have something wrong mentally and struggle as a result.\n\nIf it's the latter then we can rehabilitate them and safely return them to society absent the circumstances that made them dangerous.\n\nIn either case punishment isn't the answer. The answer, no matter the severity of the crime, is either rehabilitation with the intent of release or providing a safe, healthy place for them to get the psychiatric help that they need.\n\nAlso if you punish murder the same way you punish other violent crimes you incentivize murder. If a person rapes someone they'll be incentivized to murder the victim to increase their chances of getting away with the crime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ye9vq",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "My focus isn't punishment, it's on the safety of the innocent.\n\nI think circumstance can justify theft or drug trafficking, but not violence.\n\nAs for mental illness, a psych ward is probably the best place for them. There definitely needs to be more done along the lines of affordable mental health services and early intervention, but once someone has reached a point where they are committing extremely violent crimes, then life in a psych ward or even a prison is better than exposing innocents to them",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7xmapq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xmtgt",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "> The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nPutting aside the issues others have raised around charging all these crimes the same giving incentive to murder in more situations. Why is armed assault in with these. It is certainly a violent crime, but to act as if it is the same level of evil as murder, rape and kidnapping is absurd to me. \n\nThe other problem is cost of course. Speaking as an American, we already have the largest prison population in the world. Where will we find the space for all these lifetime appointments now?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yew80",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "My goal is safety, not punishment, so in suggesting the same sentence I'm not suggesting equal evilness. I'm simply suggesting that people that attack others with weapons shouldn't be let loose in society.\n\nAs for cost, it is an issue but I think the issue of safety outweighs it. Idealistically, I'm all for increased taxation of the rich and/or reduced incarceration for drug crimes to offset the cost. Realistically, I expect that any government that went ahead with drastic sentence increases would also budget more taxation funds towards the justice system. I also feel that the increased expense wouldn't be quite as much as one might initially think, as there would be less logistics, transport, court time etc involved in repeat offenses",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7xmtgt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7xrsu5",
                    "author": "golden_eyed_cat",
                    "body": "There are a few reasons why I believe that sentencing someone to life in prison for comitting a violent crime is a bad idea: \n\n1. Just because a punishment for a crime is harsher, doesn't mean that less people commit it. The reason for that, is because, when someone is breaking a law, they often assume that they will not get caught, and therefore punished for their offence. In some cases, such as being under the influence of drugs or emotions, criminals don't even think about getting caught when they are comitting a crime.\n\n2. In many places, prisons are already overpopulated, and running them is quite expensive. If we give criminals longer sentences, we will have to invest more money into feeding, clothing, as well as guarding them, and that money could be used elsewhere to benefit society.\n\n3. While punishing criminals is important, resocializing them is much more beneficial for society as a whole. The reason for that, is it reduces crime rates, allows us to allocate less money to running prisons (since there are less criminals serving sentences in them), as well as increases the amount of productive citizens, which is beneficial for the economy. Countries that give criminals milder sentences, and focus on turning them back into upstanding members of society such as Norway, have much lower crime rates than places where the main goal of prisons is to punish those that break the law.\n\n4. This ties into my previous point. By sentencing all people that commit violent crimes to life in prison, we are taking away their incentive to redeem themselves, and in turn, potentially limiting the amount of productive members of society. In return, violent criminals that have no way of making up for their mistakes, could try to escape from prison to commit even more crimes, get into fights with other inmates, and do their best to make the guards' jobs as unpleasant as possible. After all, their punishment will not get any worse, so they might as well do so.\n\n5. In many cases, there are mitigating circumstances for committed crimes, and giving those that have such circumstances the same punishment that criminals with no mitigating circumstances is unfair, as well as the reason why laws allow some flexibility when it comes to giving criminals punishments. After all, should a child that was abused by their parent for several years that eventually snapped, attacked their abuser in an attempt to beat them up and accidentally ended up killing them, get the same sentence as a psychopath that killed a teenager in a brutal way for their own amusement?",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82cz8b",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">Just because a punishment for a crime is harsher, doesn't mean that less people commit it.\n\nThis wasn't my reasoning. I don't think the longer sentences would act as a deterrent, I think they would prevent repeat crimes \n\n>Countries that give criminals milder sentences, and focus on turning them back into upstanding members of society such as Norway, have much lower crime rates than places where the main goal of prisons is to punish those that break the law\n\nDo you have a source for this?\n\nAs for people redeeming themselves and becoming positive members of society, honestly I think that some people are just irredeemable",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7xrsu5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y2pcj",
                    "author": "gothicgamelabs",
                    "body": "The problem with life in prison is that it makes people do worse things. Think about it: if you committed a crime that is going to get you the maximum sentence, why wouldn't you just keep going? Kill the cops, steal their car, drive down the street running over civilians like it's a video game. If you're already going to jail forever, you have nothing to lose.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y3cc0",
                    "author": "BigT9991",
                    "body": "Not if there's a god given reason \ud83d\udcaf",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yazh8",
                    "author": "Chris_3213",
                    "body": "The debate here is about the purpose of jail. Is it retribution, or correction? If retribution, then why stop at jail for life? Horrific crimes could be punished in other horrific ways - and eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But if jail is about correcting societally deviant behavior, then lifetime sentences become a moot point - that\u2019s not what it\u2019s about",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82dxvh",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Neither, I think the main purpose of jail is/should be safety - protecting the innocent from violent criminals",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yazh8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yb8hv",
                    "author": "LimbicLogic",
                    "body": "Really think about the title of this OP: violent *crimes* should get life in prison.\n\nYes, all violent criminal behavior should be in prison.  The person behind those actions should have this tendency to be *shaped out of him* (spirituality, psychotherapy, community, etc. being the means of shaping) in this same prison, and he should serve a time until that shaping is up. \n\nThat's what rehabilitation actually looks like.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82e0gb",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "I don't think murderers and rapists CAN be rehabilitated",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yb8hv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ydoo0",
                    "author": "OmniManDidNothngWrng",
                    "body": "And what should prison be?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82e8iw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "What do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7ydoo0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yggfj",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> My view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people.\n> \n> A caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThe problem here is known as the creation of a \"[perverse incentive](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive)\". Some people have already brought it up in different words, but you haven't fully addressed it.\n\nSomeone who has committed a sufficiently violent crime (under your definition) would then have no reason not to kill the victim and any other witnesses, since they know that if they get caught, they are already certain to get a life sentence anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yn7f8",
                    "author": "TyrantExterminator",
                    "body": "I don't agree at all and let me explain why:  \n\n\n1. What makes you think that the gov have the authority to essentially kill the person?  \n\n2. People can change, and 20 years might not seem much but 20 years is about 1/4 of the average lifetime, and besides if they get out at that point, their life will be very rough.  \n\n3. Even though you said it: Innocent people will still get convicted  \n\n4. The cost of keeping an inmate is not cheap at all...  \n\n5. No one would want the job of overseeing a prison where no one is getting out - would be a daily bloodbath...  \n\n\nWhat would really change if you kept them locked up for so long? One person less in the streets, and then what? People will still murder, rape etc no matter what \"punishment\" exist.   \n\n\nOne thing that I am curious about though is how you view it when the govermnet commits violent crimes, ex a cop shoots a citizen or when the POTUS drop bombs in the middle east - should they too get life in prison, and how would you go about that?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82fp1o",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">1. What makes you think that the gov have the authority to essentially kill the person? \n\nThe democratic system\n\n>People can change\n\nSome people can somewhat change. Statistics about repeat crimes show that not enough violent criminals change for letting them out to be a safe thing to do\n\n>The cost of keeping an inmate is not cheap at all\n\nI lean towards negative utilitarianism - as in, the goal should be to reduce suffering. And by that I mean reduce the suffering of the person that's suffering most, not reduce average suffering. If more taxes are funnelled towards jail upkeep it'd mean less for hospitals, school etc, but I think extreme violence is probably one of the worst things a person can experience and mitigating it should be a high priority",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yn7f8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7ytpk8",
                    "author": "NaturalCarob5611",
                    "body": "Say you've got a 19 year old who's strung out on drugs trying to get his next fix. He robs a convenience store, but nobody gets hurt. He gets arrested, convicted, goes to prison. In prison he gets off the drugs and gets cleaned up. He studies a trade so that he could be valuable on the outside. He mentors other prisoners to help them get clean and learn useful skills. 30 years later when the guy turns 50 and he's still clean, still a model inmate, do you really think he's dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to mingle with innocent people? Sure, maybe you put him on probation to make sure he stays clean once he's on the outside, but there are issues like drug abuse that can actually be solved within a lifetime to say someone isn't a threat any more.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82fshp",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": ">nobody gets hurt\n\nHow is this a violent crime?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7ytpk8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82hnsq",
                    "author": "Suspiciously_Flawed",
                    "body": "Every single ounce of research on this topic disagrees with you. Strong punishments do nothing to stop crime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8h6bwc",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Source?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j82hnsq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10ydtjz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Please actually read and respond to the post, not just the title. There isn't space for nuance in a title.\n\nContext: today I listened to a podcast about a man who stabbed a woman in the chest four times, kidnapped her baby, and then stood on the roof of a three story building telling police he was gonna throw the baby to the ground. He only got 20 years in prison.\n\nMy view: people who commit extremely violent crimes should be locked away for life, whether in a prison or a psych ward. They are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed to return to society and mingle with innocent people. \n\nA caveat: I don't mean ANY violent crime. Getting into a bar fight is different from cold blooded murder. The crimes I think should get life in prison are rape, kidnapping, murder, attempted murder, and armed assault.\n\nThings that won't change my mind: talking about people who have been falsely accused. That's certainly an issue and the court system shouldn't be putting anyone away without solid proof, but I think that's its own issue.\n\nWays in which my mind has been changed so far:\n1. This shouldn't apply to violent crimes that were heavily provoked.\n2. This shouldn't apply to minors.\n3. It's possible that keeping lesser sentences for violent crimes other than murder could deter murder",
                    "date": "2023-02-09",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: Violent crimes should get life in prison",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10ydtjz/cmv_violent_crimes_should_get_life_in_prison/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j88eaul",
                    "author": "RandomRecorder753",
                    "body": "1. 20 years in prison are a long time. Like 20 years alone is a long time when you consider that the average age of a murderer is between 20 and 30 ([https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201601/homicide-fact-age-matters](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/wicked-deeds/201601/homicide-fact-age-matters)). But 20 years without freedom will feel a lot longer than that. So don't underestimate the gravity of such a sentence. From the perspective of someone that age, that probably is life in prison (as it is literally the length of their life (so far) behind bars). For people younger than that it's even longer and for people older than that, their life might actually end in prison because of that.\n\n2. People who commit violent crimes usually have a history of violence themselves and have been physically or mentally abused. Like what sane person stabs someone in the chest and tries to kill or even endangers a baby? That's not meant as a \"get out of jail free card\", but maybe locking people up and punishing people isn't the best answer either. Maybe one should offer better preventive care, reduce the violence in the system not increase it and call it \"justice\" and take good care of the victims instead of pretending a locked up perpetrator is the solution to the problem. Like the consequences of their deed will still be a problem, unless they are treated as well.\n\n3. You can't lock people up indefinitely. a) It's a blatant human rights violation and even if you don't care for those on the receiving end of it, you're still putting society in the position of a violent perpetrator which is not great and sets the mindset for even more human rights violations as you're already rationalizing to yourself how it's ok to mistreat people who are not in a position or posses a right to defend themselves.\n\n4. b) It's expensive to lock people up. Like if you take away their freedom you also take away their incentive to provide for themselves or to work on themselves and make this work for them. So you have a constantly violent and aggressive environment that makes it's own rules, takes up resources and doesn't produce others. And no again slavery, exploitation and other human rights abuses to prisoners are not a good idea... So what you end up with is given increasingly more money to the prison industrial complex without any benefit to anybody.\n\n5. So as you can't detain people indefinitely and don't plan to expect for a low number of exceptions where that might be necessary. You kinda have to make prisons better in rehabilitating people. Like teach them stuff that enables them to live a normal life after prison rather them teaching them hierarchies of violence, connections with the mob and just put their life on pause for 20 years and afterwards treat them as outcasts so that their only option is to pick up where they left...",
                    "date": "2023-02-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10ydtjz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "10yh4mx",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                "date": "2023-02-10",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7y3gbr",
                "author": "TripRichert",
                "body": "part of oil change company's income is upselling.\n\nThey change your oil, notice your tires are worn out, offer to change those, too.\n\nA lot of places do offer appointments.  I've gotten my oil changed and heard people seeking walk-ins be turned away.\n\nThat said, some oil change companies likely will want some slack in the schedule so that they can take on work that has better margins, some of which they're hoping to rope in through the initial oil change service.",
                "date": "2023-02-10",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7y3wsg",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "OK I guess if the big money is in the upsells, but those cause more unpredictability in the service times, then that makes sense.\n\n\u0394",
                "date": "2023-02-10",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "j7y3gbr"
            },
            {
                "id": "j7y3ye4",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TripRichert ([244\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TripRichert)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j7y3wsg"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y2hns",
                    "author": "gothicgamelabs",
                    "body": "I just have my mechanic do it, and he goes my appointment. If people want an appointment, they can go to any of the countless places that do it. \n\nWould you expect an appointment to get a car wash? That's largely the same thing in terms of time, and I don't' think I've ever seen one that takes appointments.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81l5r3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "Well the major difference is that the line at a car wash is rarely more than five minutes, not like the hour-long line I saw at Valvoline that was snaking out into the road.\n\nI did check with my mechanic.  They can do the same thing \"by appointment\", but I'd have to leave the car there, go home, and come back at least 2 hours later.  For me, this defeats the purpose of \"making an appointment\" :)  (Well, not entirely.  It depends on whether you're trying to minimize \"waiting time\" or \"dead time sitting in your car\".  If I dropped my car off with the mechanic and took an Uber home and later back again, at least I wouldn't waste an hour sitting in the car.)\n\nDoes your mechanic let you make an appointment, where you come in, and leave half an hour later after they've done the equivalent of the Valvoline service?  (Which is not just changing the oil but the 10-12 other things that come with it.)",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j7y2hns"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y3noo",
                    "author": "HeWhoShitsWithPhone",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think I have ever waited more than 20 minute for an oil change at the place where I go. Half the time I go there are no other cars. For this business I appointments are not helpful. They would just be a distraction from doing oil changes.\n\n\nPlus some places let you schedule appointments. My mom went to the dealership to get her oil changed. It coast more and took longer but she made appointments. If we are going to hope for change we should hope for 20 minutes or less, not hour long appointments.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7y4s77",
                    "author": "intoxicated-browsing",
                    "body": "These places specifically advertise as instant oil changes. The whole point is for there not to be appointment. It\u2019s the auto equivalent of a minute clinic or urgent care facility. Any place that takes walk ins will have a line in there busy hours. Even the Emergency room has wait times if enough people fuck up bad enough around the same time. If it takes walk ins you have to deal with waiting in a queue. If they took an appointment that means one less spot in the garage for however long the works takes. That means if you call ahead and reserve a spot the bay you are in. They would likely also keep the bay clear for a few minutes leading up to it. Now not only is the line moving slower but the people in line will then get to watch you skip the line. Regardless of the fact that they have the same ability to reserve the spot a large number people in line will likely still get annoyed and lower over all customer satisfaction without actually increasing the number of cars they see a day. Also these places average around 15 minutes an oil change so if you are 3 minutes late to an appointment that\u2019s 20% of an oil change. If they close the bay 5 minutes before the appointment that\u2019s 1/3 of an oil change. Also and most importantly if you add scheduled appointments how do you keep them from filling your day and preventing drive ups. You could dedicate half the bays to it but then the drive ups move half the speed. You could set a time restriction like 2 hours in advance limit but then it\u2019s a race to get the spots every time a new one opens.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yq4bu",
                    "author": "Finklesfudge",
                    "body": ">Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000? If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.\n\nYou are *enormously* over estimating the difficulty of changing your own oil and the difficulty of knowing if you've done something incorrect.  \n\nI see deltas have already occured though.\n\nBut my main argument would be there are already a billion places that offer you to make an appointment to get your oil changed.\n\nIf your argument is *actually* that you want professionals doing the work, you shouldn't be going to Jiffy Lube, you'd be going to a reputable and certified in your car brand mechanic.  Mechanics all take appointments.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81odfn",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "To clarify, I'm not talking about just the oil change, it's the 10-12 other things that they do, where the DIY instructions are extremely likely to contain errors.\n\nIf you think I'm wrong, what's *one* YouTube video about changing your own transmission fluid, that you think is correct.  I'll bet I can find at least one crucial thing that they leave out.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7yq4bu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7yyjvw",
                    "author": "Crayshack",
                    "body": "I worked for a company for a while that had a deal with NTB to do the oil changes for our company vehicles.  At NTB, you make an appointment for all services and my company had a corporate deal with them to get priority service.  That is the longest I have ever had to wait for an oil change.  I'm talking sometimes sitting there for 4 hours.  Sometimes, despite having an appointment and arriving on time, it would be over an hour before they even pulled my truck into the bay.  \n\nMeanwhile, in places like Jiffy Lube I'm consistently out in like 15-20 minutes.  The best part is that if I roll up and see a long line, I immediately know if it is a day that will be a long wait and I can choose to just come back another time if the wait isn't worth getting service right then.  Most of the time, I'll time my visit so I'm off peak hours and so there isn't a wait.  I'll just roll right in without having to decide well in advance when I'm going or going through the scheduling process.\n\nMy experience has given me a massive preference for walk-in oil changes over appointments.  I do in general prefer things I can do as a walk in instead of calling ahead but oil changes are one of the few things that I've experienced both and had a massively better experience with walk-ins.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7z41qt",
                    "author": "6data",
                    "body": "\"All drive-thrus should be converted to sit down restaurants.\"\n\nWhy? If you want an appointment, make an appointment with the thousands of mechanics that accept appointments. If you want to get your oil-changed on a whim, wait in line. You're asking for a specific service from a business that explicitly exists as an alternative to that kind of service.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81nso3",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "Does your mechanic let you make an appointment for an oil-change-plus-the-10-or-12-other-things (i.e. the equivalent of what Valvoline and Jiffy Lube call \"signature service\" and recommend every three months), where you can drive in, get it done, and drive out half an hour later?\n\nMy mechanic does do this service \"by appointment\", but you have to leave your car there and come back 2 to 4 hours later.  For me this mostly defeats the purpose :)",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j7z41qt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7z8auv",
                    "author": "sawdeanz",
                    "body": "Virtually every mechanic offers an appointment for a oil change. \n\nThe market has already sorted it out. You are just refusing to use the businesses that cater to your preferences and are instead insisting that other businesses with different models cater to you specifically. \n\nIf the quick oil change places have an hour line all the time then clearly there are a lot of people that like that service.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81nzkl",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "The mechanics that I talked to, do let you \"make appointments\", but you have to leave the car there for several hours.  This defeats the purpose.\n\nHave you found a mechanic that lets you make an appointment to drive in for an oil change (plus the 10 or 12 other things that Jiffy Lube / Valvoline does) and drive out half an hour later with the work done?",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7z8auv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j7zlz8j",
                    "author": "rewt127",
                    "body": "Honestly after like 3 questions on like make, model, and \"is there a skid plate\" then I would feel pretty confident about that $50 bet.\n\nIts pretty hard to fuck up an oil change if you have more than 2 functioning brain cells.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81k0zt",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "1) It's not the actual oil change I'm worried about, it's more the other 10-12 things that they check.\n\n2) The general pattern is that any time I've had a professional take over something that I tried doing myself, the answer was always, \"Yeah, there was thing X, Y, and Z that wasn't covered in the video.\"  It's easy to learn about X, Y, and Z once they explain it, but that misses the point -- it means the instructions in the video did not work.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j7zlz8j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81j0uv",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "Here's one simple hack that oil change places hate...\n\nBut really, you can have it both ways. Call ahead of time and ask them how long it will take to get an oil change. They'll say \"we've got about x people in line, so it should take x time.\" \n\nYeah, that won't help you if you want it guaranteed at a specific time, but if you just don't want to have to wait in line when you get there then it'll help you.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j81jgjl",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "Well yeah, I did that.  And the answer from all of them was always, \"It's about an hour wait, unless you get here right when we open at 8 am.\"  So that's what I did the next morning, but I'd like to be able to get in and out efficiently without having to be there at 8.  (And besides, obviously, that doesn't work if everybody does it.  The existing system guarantees that lots of people will waste time sitting in cars.)",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j81j0uv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "10yh4mx",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "All the oil change locations that I called the other day had a pre-recorded phone greeting proudly proclaiming, \"... where you never have to make an appointment!\"  This is a weird flex since when I then got through to a human, they all said there was an hour-long queue of cars lining up.  You'd think most people would prefer appointments.\n\nThe obvious solution seems to be to just make appointments so that you can block out a 20-minute timeslot and just show up at that time.  Sometimes they'll be running behind and you might have to wait 20-30 minutes past your scheduled start time, but that's still easier than waiting an hour.\n\n(By \"oil change businesses\" I mean places like Jiffy Lube and Valvoline and check 10-15 other things besides just changing your oil.)\n\n(Before you offer advice about \"how to do X, Y, and Z yourself\", ask yourself this question: Would you be willing to take a bet where I pay you $50 if your directions work, but if your advice ends up causing harm because of some unusual condition that is not covered by your directions, you pay me $5,000?  If you don't like those odds, then you shouldn't be giving the advice, because you're just transferring the risk/reward ratio to someone else -- $5,000 is on the low end of the damage you could cause if your car malfunctions while it's moving.  I know people mean well who offer advice, but pretty much every time I've hired a professional to do something, there was some unusual condition that would have rendered the \"YouTube directions\" useless, or dangerous.)\n\nGenerally I don't see the point of CMVs for how private businesses should be run, because I would expect customer preferences to sort things out in the marketplace on their own, but this is one where the businesses seem to be clearly refusing to do something that a lot of customers would prefer.  So, oil change companies should let you make appointments.  CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oil change businesses should let you make appointments instead of lining up in your car",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/10yh4mx/cmv_oil_change_businesses_should_let_you_make/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j82hvpw",
                    "author": "CommunicationFun7973",
                    "body": "Don't use quick oil places, I've seen it bite sooo many people in the ass.",
                    "date": "2023-02-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "10yh4mx"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "112f6qg",
                "author": "nhlms81",
                "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                "date": "2023-02-14",
                "score": 514,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8mlufx",
                "author": "Lippshitz",
                "body": "Here\u2019s a compromise. Throw in a college band to the same exact Rihanna half time show",
                "date": "2023-02-15",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "112f6qg"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8mmwrt",
                "author": "nhlms81",
                "body": "!delta \n\nAnother comment suggested the same. And I love the idea. Rihanna over a drum line, dre, em, etc. It's still the draw of the pop icon but it's actually a net new experience unique to the super bowl, and you get to share that limelight with the band / drum line / etc.\n\nAgree this is best of both worlds.",
                "date": "2023-02-15",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j8mlufx"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8mmy2f",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Lippshitz ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Lippshitz)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j8mmwrt"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jpn5g",
                    "author": "trippingfingers",
                    "body": "Say what you will, but personal preference arguments should be considered when MOST people would be more excited about getting to see a stadium performance by a massive name than a college band they know nothing about. I guarantee fewer people would tune in for the performance, and therefore, the ads. Revenue would take a hit.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jq5gy",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "a. how many people who watch the super bowl will watch it no matter what the half time show is? \n\nb. how many people watch it specifically for the half time show? \n\nc. is there a totally different group of people who DON'T watch today, but would, if there was a competitive college band playoff culminating in the half time show? \n\nif \"c\" is bigger than \"b\", that's all that matters. my bet is \"c\" would be a bigger draw.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "j8jpn5g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jq5pn",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": ">a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads.\n\nthe people in charge of making this decision have the ability to book a college band, because I'm sure most college bands would like to play at the super bowl halftime show.\n\nso for me the burden of proof is on you to show that these people are making a bad decision.  All else equal, I would assume the people whose job it is to get ratings, have a better then average ability to understand how to get ratings.\n\nA list musicians sell out the largest stadiums in the world.  College band don't do that.  College band have considerably fewer fands the A list musicians.   Rihanna latest album sold over 10 million copies in a world that no longer buys albums.  No college band is doing that.\n\nI can't prove conclusively that A list musicians are better for ratings (nobody can without some kind of time machine and lots of trials).  But the evidence seems to lean pretty heavy in one direction.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jr0sg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": ">I would assume the people whose job it is to get ratings, have a better then average ability to understand how to get ratings.\n\nbut is there reason to believe this? the NFL ratings have sort of been flat / down over the past few years.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "j8jq5pn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jq5wb",
                    "author": "xiategative",
                    "body": "My girlfriend turned the tv on *exclusively* to watch Rihanna\u2019s halftime show at 3 am (we are in Europe). I can assure you that there\u2019s no way in hell that she would\u2019ve done that for a random college band. The NFL wants to expand their market to other countries and make more money, I wouldn\u2019t use college bands for that purpose.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 132,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jtidd",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "i don't doubt that there aren't people who would no longer tune in. they are in the \"net loss\" category. my argument is that the \"net gain\", viewers who today don't tune in either for football or halftime show, would be more likely to tune in for, essentially, a new product. and the reason to believe this is that they don't tune in today. \n\ni am dubious that the NFL is going to pick \"the right\" professional entertainers.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -42,
                    "parent_id": "j8jq5wb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jq7n8",
                    "author": "IndependenceAway8724",
                    "body": "Why would a college band perform at a professional football game? Wouldn't it make more sense for a college band to play at college games? \n\nThe Superbowl is for professional teams. It follows that the halftime show should feature professional musicians.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 40,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kk85a",
                    "author": "Livid-Ad4102",
                    "body": "Yeah it's odd he didn't mention any *professional* big bands or orchestras which would 100% be better than hearing kids play the tiger rag and sweet Caroline haha",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "j8jq7n8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jqafl",
                    "author": "shaffe04gt",
                    "body": "Apple is the sponsor of the halftime show for the next 4 years at 50 million per year.  Don't think they are gonna see a return on their investment for a college band.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8js6kf",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "yes, i agree that Apple doesn't benefit from my model. my point is i think the NFL benefits from picking different sponsors.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "j8jqafl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jqihh",
                    "author": "Sirhc978",
                    "body": ">It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled.\n\n[120 million people watched the 2022 halftime show](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/09/23/apple-will-sponsor-super-bowl-halftime-show-starting-in-february.html#:~:text=The%20National%20Football%20League%20has,Halftime%20Show%2C%20which%20featured%20Dr).  That is almost a third of the country.  \n\n>I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining.\n\nMaybe.  At the same time, no one cares about college marching bands.  Rihanna draws eyeballs.  College musicians no one has heard of does not. \n\n>that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space.\n\nSeeing how Apple just started a multi-year deal with the NFL to sponsor the halftime show, you would have to convince them that hiring some college band would be a better return on investment than hiring a popular musician.  The halftime show tries to appeal to more than just football fans.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 263,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jrq0c",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "yes, but, of that 120 million: \n\na. how many people who watch the super bowl will watch it no matter what the half time show is?\r  \n\r  \nb. how many people watch it specifically for the half time show?\r  \n\r  \nc. is there a totally different group of people who DON'T watch today, but would, if there was a competitive college band playoff culminating in the half time show?\r  \n\r  \nif \"c\" is bigger than \"b\", that's all that matters. my bet is \"c\" would be a bigger draw.\n\n​\n\nNFL viewership is flat / down over the last few years. what makes us think \"more of the same\" is the right solution?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -22,
                    "parent_id": "j8jqihh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jqjmx",
                    "author": "Mront",
                    "body": "> a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue.\n\nApple Music pays $50 million per year for the naming rights to the Super Bowl Halftime Show.\n\nThey wouldn't pay those $50 million per year if the concert didn't include a band or a star that is available and popular on the Apple Music service.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 38,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jqm3z",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry.\n\nWhat's wrong with paying entertainers?\n\nThat said, the halftime show act is generally not paid.\n\n>It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled.\n\nYou think people will be more excited about a marching band than a famous recording artist?\n\nThe goal is to keep eyes on the program, not lose them to other things, as those are big ad rate minutes. You honestly think more people would not change the channel if it was a marching band than if it was Rhianna? \n\n>I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining.\n\nI think this is just a personal thing but see above? If people found marching bands more entertaining they'd be in more places doing more things.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jvvfh",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": ">What's wrong with paying entertainers?\n\nnothing. what's wrong w/ investing in a college, band program, charity, etc? \n\n>You think people will be more excited about a marching band than a famous recording artist?\n\ni mean... yes. i think its a possibility. \n\nbut more importantly, i think its kind of the wrong question. its not, \"are more people excited about...\". the right question is, \"some amount of people will watch the super bowl no matter what. you could put some joe from the karaoke bar up there and they'll watch. some amount of people will watch ONLY if the NFL picks the right entertainer. this group watched Rhianna but not Em, or vice versa. Then there is some group who DOES NOT watch the super bowl today. \n\nthe gamble is: can we get more net new eyes w/ this competitive college band series than we will lose re: the segment that watches only for their entertainer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "j8jqm3z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jquax",
                    "author": "sgraar",
                    "body": ">\ti think more people would be interested in a band champ\u2019s performance than a professional entertainer\n\nI find it hard that you actually believe this but, if you do, this is probably the view that can be changed.\n\nIf a band champ\u2019s performance is interesting to more people, why are the professional entertainers making more money, selling more albums, getting streamed more often, selling out huge arenas, etc.?\n\nUnless you\u2019re trying to suggest some form of strange conspiracy, it stands to reason that the performers who get the most money and attention are the ones who more people want to watch. That being the case, the NFL would get more ad revenue from a half-time show with Taylor Swift or Beyonc\u00e9 than from one with much lesser-known people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 72,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jwsid",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "yeah... this is a good point, but its not one that changes my view, b/c i think \"super bowl halftime show\" and \"album sales\" are two different things, except at the margins. \n\nthere are people who watch the super bowl no matter what. you and i could do a duet and this segment will watch us. \n\nthere's another group that ONLY tunes in for the professional performer. however, this group \"travels\" w/ a specific collection of artists. for instance, you mention TS and B... they will draw into this segment from their fans or genre, but they won't draw across fans. \n\nthen there's another group who DOES NOT watch the super bowl at all. this group of people is not buying what the NFL is selling. they're also NOT buying TS or B albums. \n\nmy point is that the last group COULD be captured w/ something like a college band playoff that results in a half time show, and the net gain here would be larger than the net loss of the specific professional entertainer. \n\nthat doesn't require a conspiracy. we already know that a majority of people don't buy any one specific artists album(s). so we want to capture a horizontal swath of the market rather than a very deep vertical swath.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -10,
                    "parent_id": "j8jquax"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8js8ha",
                    "author": "BigBlueMountainStar",
                    "body": "You also seem to be forgetting that there\u2019s an increasingly large non-US audiences watching the Super Bowl, and I\u2019d wager that very few of us give a shit about watching college bands performing at half time.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jx7po",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "agreed. but don't think this is the question. would you NOT watch the super bowl if it wasn't a professional entertainer half time show? \n\n/ are there comparable things like the college band in the EU?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "j8js8ha"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jt4on",
                    "author": "BlueRibbonMethChef",
                    "body": ">a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads.\n\nWhile you're at work today, ask people to name 3 individuals who are in the top college bands.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jxffz",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "this is the same argument lots have made. i think its flawed. \n\nthis argument is not one that changes my view, b/c i think \"super bowl halftime show\" and \"album sales\" are two different things, except at the margins.\r  \n\r  \nthere are people who watch the super bowl no matter what. you and i could do a duet and this segment will watch us.\r  \n\r  \nthere's another group that ONLY tunes in for the professional performer. however, this group \"travels\" w/ a specific collection of artists. for instance, you mention TS and B... they will draw into this segment from their fans or genre, but they won't draw across fans.\r  \n\r  \nthen there's another group who DOES NOT watch the super bowl at all. this group of people is not buying what the NFL is selling. they're also NOT buying TS or B albums.\r  \n\r  \nmy point is that the last group COULD be captured w/ something like a college band playoff that results in a half time show, and the net gain here would be larger than the net loss of the specific professional entertainer.\r  \n\r  \nthat doesn't require a conspiracy. we already know that a majority of people don't buy any one specific artists album(s). so we want to capture a horizontal swath of the market rather than a very deep vertical swath.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "j8jt4on"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jtjam",
                    "author": "whater39",
                    "body": "I wouldn't watch a half time of college's best bands. It would have zero excitement and \"connection\" for me.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 32,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jxhf5",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "would you not watch the super bowl at all?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8jtjam"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jtpsk",
                    "author": "SupremeElect",
                    "body": "Go ahead and do that, but just know me and the majority of Americans who aren\u2019t into football will stop watching, altogether.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k3qnn",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": ">the majority of Americans who aren\u2019t into football\n\nright... this is what i'm saying. let's say you sit in the category of, \"don't care about football, will watch pop star\"\n\nand there is some contingent of you. the stats say its like 7%, or about 8M viewers. \n\nAmerica's Got Talent does 6 and change M / episode. and there are not existing pop singers there. we're watching for all sorts of other reasons, and all of those reasons translate into college band playoff series. \n\nand that's before we add the college football fans. \n\nso you're right, we'd be losing one contingent, and then replacing that w/ another, broader contingent.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j8jtpsk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8juffw",
                    "author": "Inhabitedmind",
                    "body": "should it?   \nyea, it's a great way to encourage young people to pursue band while also having a cute fun way to fund certain schools. It's also great to encourage creativity as the halftime show is more than just music but a performance piece that will be talked about for at least a week after, sometimes even years. It's a hopeful idea that can bring about some good for education. \n\nWould people actually watch it?   \nno. it's a very niche interest for most people, football fans aren't in it for the saxophone players of Ohio State. Some people will think it's cute but more people will think it's lazy and cheap they didn't hire a professional artist like Katy Perry, Rhianna, Eminem, Maroon 5, etc. \n\nThe Superbowl is a huge event that has to rake in as much interest as possible as it's a big day for more than just the NFL. it's a big day for bars, certain food sellers (Chips, wings, dip, beer, etc), advertisers, merch, and streaming platforms that play the Superbowl. I also believe there is more action on social media when the Superbowl plays. So you have to play the most interesting Halftime show as it's one of the more focused on parts. Just check social media, it's like a few things about Maholmes, some about the Eagle's coach crying. But it's mostly about \"is Rhianna pregnant?\" and memes about the performance. Hell, we all remember Left Shark from Katy perry's halftime show! That was 2015! I mean [this link](https://www.fiercevideo.com/video/super-bowl-halftime-show-grow-audience-compared-2021-samba-tv#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20number%20of%20households%20who,big%20winner%20for%20the%20NFL.%E2%80%9D) explains how important the Halftime show is for viewership, they went up 41% in viewers after the halftime show. People have access to both professional musicians and marching band videos, guess which has more views? \n\nDo you think that a marching band will gain enough attention to justify its existence? To not have someone use it as a break time to go pee, refill their beers/chips/meal, or even just talk over it? Do you honestly think it will beat out a professional artist if given the choice between the two?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k3cgd",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "lots of people are making a similar case. but, look at \"america's got talent\". they do a little over 6M views / episode. people aren't watching for the \"talent\", they're watching for all sorts of other reasons. the trainwrecks, the feel good backstories, the competitive drama, and the surprises. \n\nthink of all the source material you'd have to sell just that same type of product w/ this playoff series. \n\nits not \"marching bands\" we'd be selling here. but its a model that let's them benefit. \n\nand we'd still get the \"left shark\" or \"wardrobe malfunction\" moments.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "j8juffw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jukk7",
                    "author": "iamintheforest",
                    "body": "In your benefits you have 2 things that are \"personal preference\".  I disagree with them - your proposal sounds boring and dull - I don't like college bands and turn to another channel with then come on.  I suspect i'm in the majority which is why college band competitions are on ESPN 23 and not on NBC.  There is no evidence that this would increase interest or viewership.  You'll also have to contend with the reality that Rihanna's halftime show had more viewership than the actual football game.  Dwindling?  Maybe, but it's additive to game viewership, not a subtractive.  I don't see college bands bring draw _at all_.\n\nRihanna was not paid.  So...would the $0 dollars you've got in number 1 still carry your view where it is?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8julp6",
                    "author": "animatorgeek",
                    "body": "From what I've heard, the halftime performer PAYS FOR the privilege of performing. It's a huge advertisement for their back catalog of albums and their tours. This thing is all about money. All parties involved are doing everything they can to maximize income. In my opinion, the idea that college marching bands would be more of a draw than famous pop musicians is ridiculous. I don't think most viewers can differentiate between a good marching band and a fantastic one, but they can absolutely differentiate between Rihanna and someone they've never heard of.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kkx3z",
                    "author": "SynthesizerofTheory",
                    "body": "I would say it is very much apparent, the technical skill difference and style of presentation between a college marching band and a drum and bugle corps from Drum Corps International. It's like the two are different \"genres\" in a sense.\n\nWatch The Academy 2016 for instance, Drum Corpse Bride, a production loosely based on Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, or Blue Devils 2018, Dreams and Nighthawks, and you will see an entirely new side of the marching arts that isn't just peppy or intended to hype up a general populace crowd, but a more refined, expressive, and complex story and presentation.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8julp6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jvgln",
                    "author": "ILikeSoundsAndStuff",
                    "body": ">2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n\n\nDo you actually think that a college band is a more exciting show than Rihanna? Or Dr. Dre and Eminem? The Who? The Rolling Stones? The Weeknd? Beyonc\u00e9? Lady Gaga? The 90s had Diana Ross and the Blues Brothers with James Brown, Stevie Wonder. \n\n\nI don\u2019t think there\u2019s a single argument to be made that college bands could draw a larger crowd or put on a more entertaining show than the biggest entertainers on the planet. Otherwise college bands would be touring the world and not performers. \n\n\nDoes everyone love the singer/band choice each year, or love the choreography/stage design? No, of course not. But on a National scale, the most watched show in America should have the most popular musicians performing. \n\n\nP.S. They had college bands doing halftime in the [70s](https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/every-super-bowl-halftime-performer-rihanna-eminem-dr-dre-snoop-dogg-lady-gaga-prince-and-more/) I think there\u2019s a reason they switched..",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 31,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kmj1k",
                    "author": "SynthesizerofTheory",
                    "body": "Drum Corps International was starting out around the 70s too, but given the have evolved to bring the type compelling, complex, and expressive shows that we see in the 21st century. Take [Academy 2016](https://youtu.be/WY0D9MpIa3s) for example. There may not be a will from a bigger wealthier person to risk the halftime show on something not as promising or certain, but if one watches that show i linked and doesnt at least somewhat feel something akin to the end of Titanic, i'd be baffled.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8jvgln"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jvlku",
                    "author": "libertysailor",
                    "body": "Your argument relies on the premise that a college band performing is a greater incentive to watch the half time show than a celebrity performer. \n\nHow many people do you know who would prefer watching college bands over celebrity artists?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jxdsf",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "A small modification to your view:\n\nIf we're going to do this, it should be the *best two* college bands, and the (literal) playoff to determine the best band should be what's in the halftime show.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8km965",
                    "author": "SynthesizerofTheory",
                    "body": "What about Drum Corps International? They have a finals competition every August in Lucas Oil Stadium, and their performances are the best in the marching arts I have seen, technical skills, story telling, complexity and expressiveness, e.t.c. \n\nThey could pick the winner of the DCI finals and have them get ready for the next few months modifying or retaining the memory of their show on an extended tour up until the Super bowl.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8jxdsf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jxwzh",
                    "author": "carbinePRO",
                    "body": "The Ohio State Marching Band's most watched video is sitting at 769k views after >1 year.\n\nRihanna's Halftime show is sitting at 38 million views after one day.\n\nI think those numbers speak for themselves.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 147,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k3qek",
                    "author": "BrasilianEngineer",
                    "body": "The better comparison, apples-to-apples, is with Rihanna's most popular video (2B views), not with the halftime show video. The marching band's hypothetical halftime show video could potentially hit tens of millions of views given a compelling performance.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "j8jxwzh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8jyy03",
                    "author": "cdin0303",
                    "body": ">a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads.\n\nEverything shown in the Super Bowl broadcast is done for one of two reasons.\n\n1. Attract the Eyeballs of viewers.\n2. Sell the Eyeballs of the viewers.\n\nIf its not doing one, its doing the other and with the Super Bowl Half time show its likely doing both.\n\nFirst lets look at the Attracting Eyeballs aspect. If you go on Youtube right now the Rihanna halftime show video has 38 million views. The Ohio State Marching Band is arguably one of the best in the country, and the most watched video on there official channel has 769k views. Do you really think Apple is going to pay 50 million to sponser the halftime show if its Ohio State rather than International recording artist Rihanna?  \n\n\nSecond, lets talk about selling the Eyeballs. I'm not sure if any artists have ever paid to be on the halftime show, but several have paid money out of there own pocket to make sure the performance matches there vision. Both Dr Dre and The Weekend reportedly spent 7 million on there shows. They do this because they see a huge increase in record sales and concert attendance. Do you think Ohio State would spend 7 million on there show? I doubt it primarily because they have fewer ways to benefit. Its not like there enrollment can go up because they are already a very prestigious school.  \n\n\nIn short, its 100% about the money.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k46el",
                    "author": "shaffe04gt",
                    "body": "This is another point.  The performers often put their own money into the show, knowing it will boost their brand.\n\nHell Rhianna launched a super bowl themed clothing line after it was announced she was the act.\n\nCollege bands aren't gonna have that kind of ammo to put on a show",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "j8jyy03"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k0f2q",
                    "author": "gabzilla814",
                    "body": "Are you referring to college marching bands or just young people in bands of any type (rock, rap, country, etc.) who happen to be in college? \n\nEven at college games where people are proud of everything related to their alma maters, nobody pays attention to the halftime band performance unless perhaps they know someone in the band. In contrast, the typical superstar performers to play Super Bowls attained their status by being incredibly popular, regardless of whether you personally happen to enjoy their music.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k250i",
                    "author": "PixieBaronicsi",
                    "body": "I actually watched the Super Bowl once, so I think I'm particularly qualified to answer this question:\n\nI think that in some of the breaks between the commercials they ought to show some entertaining sport of some kind.\n\nIn some of the breaks between the commercials they showed 30 men wearing fat-suits run into each other for a couple of seconds, but I didn't really get what that was about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k2fla",
                    "author": "Perdendosi",
                    "body": "1. The last time a college marching band had a significant presence during the Super Bowl was in 1992.  If a  marching band was a significant draw, you could believe the NFL would be using them more.  Instead, they get bigger and bigger headliners over the past 30 years.\n2. Anectodal evidence, but whatever: Way more people at my 20+ person party watched Ri-Ri than the game.  You admit that those people would be lost, but that there'd be other eyes because of the marching bands, but:\n3. There are literally no marching band shows that get any sort of TV rating. If there were all of these millions of lost eyes, at least some of them would be watching things like the [DCI Championships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drum_Corps_International_World_Class_Champions). Outside of a couple (Grambling State, [Stanford when they play Notre Dame)](https://www.sfgate.com/local-donotuse/article/LSJUMB-Stanford-university-banned-marching-band-13210027.php), marching bands are unknown and unappreciated.  \n4. Marching Band performances SUCK on TV.  In person, there's a tremendous scope of sound and marching spectacle.  That can't be adequately captured on TV -- you're too wide to see the formations or you're too close to see (largely irrelevant) individuals.  The sound doesn't translate.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 25,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k5bb6",
                    "author": "shaffe04gt",
                    "body": ".4 is a big point too.  You have to remember they are putting on a show not only for the crowd there a TV audience as well.  It has to look good and sound good for a TV broadcast.\n\nThink of it like Avatar- looked great on a big screen in 3D a visual masterpiece.  On my 27\" TV not so impressive.\n\nProfessional entertainers can bring that flash and sizzle that a college band cant",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "j8k2fla"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k2iiv",
                    "author": "BKS37",
                    "body": "I'm going to go a different route than most others I'm seeing here. This really isn't feasible for most if not all college bands. College marching band is a class with credit hours that runs for one semester at most big schools. Once classes resume after winter break, the band doesn't meet. Even if they did, there is only 1 month between classes resuming and the Big Game. A lot of bands can throw together a show in a week. But for a performance of this level you would want need significantly more time. It takes time to learn drill. It takes time to memorize music. Then you need to complicate both of these tasks in order to create a technically difficult show to justify being there. If you're asking for a simpler \"picture show\" then you're not going to attract the top bands. While it's fun to watch a dinosaur walk down the field to the theme from Jurassic Park, it's not all that difficult. Any band given time could do it. \n\nTake something like DCI (competitive marching band competitions). These musicians spend the entire summer, 8-10 hours a day perfecting one show. Go look up some of the past winning performances. There is simply not enough time, even if you were able to assemble the entire drum corp, to bring everybody back up to peak condition in the middle of winter while allowing the students to go to class. Their shows are amazing to watch, both musically and visually. But I can attest that you can lose a lot of nuance without the right eye. I was in a large college band for 5 years and watched the DCI finals this past year with a group of friends who had participated in years past. They were pointing stuff out to me that I didn't notice, and my eye is probably more attuned to this stuff than most casual football fans. \n\nMost people are going the route of it not making sense financially. I'd like to throw out it's just not feasible for most band programs that usually wrap up rehearsal time in early December when football season is over. You can practice for 2 hours a day and not be nearly ready for this large a stage. And even that's a lot to ask of busy college students in their \"off-season.\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k2khd",
                    "author": "WeArEaLlMaDhErE-13",
                    "body": "Cons: hear band music",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k2ntw",
                    "author": "Trouvette",
                    "body": "The problem here is that the half time show would become derivative year after year. College bands don\u2019t have a massive following that would motivate people to watch each year to hear the same style of music. Not to mention, there is a 50% chance that a celebrity performer is going to have a college band for part of their act anyway. \n\nAt least with the way things are now, they can rotate the types of artists that they use, so the show stays fresh.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k3bvh",
                    "author": "CaptainMalForever",
                    "body": "First, the performers for the Super Bowl are NOT paid. They get scale.  \n\n\nSecond, marching bands are often the halftime show for college football games. If they were a draw, then many people would tune into these games, even if they aren't college football fans. Which doesn't happen.  \n\n\nThird, more people watch the halftime show than the game ([source](https://variety.com/2017/tv/news/super-bowl-li-ratings-patriots-falcons-24-1201978629/)) and many people ([source](https://blog.wearemiq.com/understanding-the-super-bowl-audiences)) watch for the halftime show.  \n\n\nFourth (and maybe most important), college marching bands are **college** students. They are actively enrolled in college course and the Super Bowl corresponds with the start of their studies. This would cause them to miss many classes. Additionally, marching band traditionally only occurs during the college football season, which is in the first semester of college.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k3iao",
                    "author": "thewanderingsail",
                    "body": " Would be cooler if it was the best DCI band. Raising awareness for how awesome marching programs are.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k79p5",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "!Delta\n\nShouldn't be limited to college bands. Also, after discussing with my wife, the BEST alternative to the current model is not one or the other, but both.\n\nDre on top of best band. rhianna on top of best band. The crossover component forces a new product, and likely satisfies the goal of attracting new viewership who is otherwise disinterested in pop stars in standalone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8k3iao"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k49vv",
                    "author": "TitanCubes",
                    "body": "I truly like your idea of best college band. Would be great for the National Championship halftime show.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k51oo",
                    "author": "BrasilianEngineer",
                    "body": ">We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry.\n\nI'll bite on this point.\n\nWhat entertainer spend are you proposing repurposing? Are you aware that superbowl halftime show artists are NOT PAID? They are the ultimate case study in payment via 'exposure'. The only people being paid are the crew providing the sound system, and you would still need them to mic a marching band.\n\nThe NFL and/or Pepsi and/or Apple Music could donate $1 million dollars to band programs or whatever for every penny they paid to the headlining artist for the halftime show performance and it would amount to a grand total of $0.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k6bhx",
                    "author": "consummate-absurdity",
                    "body": "College bands can already perform at College Bowl games, which are large events in their own right.\n\nThe NFL is a professional league. Having professional entertainers seems appropriate.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8qgjzo",
                    "author": "SynthesizerofTheory",
                    "body": "i just wished they would stop cutting to commercial every time the band came in at halftime during college games that are televised. It is about money, i get it, but its doing a disservice to the colleges as a whole imo.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8k6bhx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k6ebw",
                    "author": "Notyourworm",
                    "body": "Do you know of any college bands that reach the top 10,000 on spotify, apple music or any other music streaming device? Or Youtube or other video player that includes music videos? That alone should demonstrate that college bands do not garner the same attention as pop stars.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k78gi",
                    "author": "themcos",
                    "body": "> since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads.\n\nOne reason is that professional entertainers appeal to a very different and often distinct crowd as compared to football. How many people love Rihanna but don't give two shits about football. How many people love college marching bands but don't care about football? Hard to imagine it's anywhere close. I would strongly suspect that a lot of the interest in \"best college band\" is going to be largely cannibalizing the college football crowd, who were probably going to watch the Superbowl anyway. Even if there's a lot of excitement about it, which frankly I'm skeptical, I don't think it's going to pick up as much *new* viewers that weren't going to watch the game anyway. Because that's really the value of the halftime show, which is that it appeals to a totally separate group of people. I don't think college marching bands are going to do that as well.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8k7zvg",
                    "author": "fastornator",
                    "body": "That makes about as much sense as saying they should replace the 6:00 news with films of marching bands. Because there's already a 7:00 news.\n\nThe NFL is in the business of entertaining people and they are not dumbasses. They had probably spent millions exploring different possibilities of what to do with all those eyes at the super bowl. It's called product research. You can't just make a statement about what would be popular without backing it up with surveys and panels and evidence that this wouldn't adversely affect NFL's product.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ka2b5",
                    "author": "navyzak",
                    "body": "- I believe the entertainers perform for free. It\u2019s basically just publicity and promotion for them. Not sure about stage set up though.\n\n- this almost certainly wouldn\u2019t have the broad appeal that the average halftime show has, meaning people check out and don\u2019t stay around for commercials.\n\n- I think there are a lot of college bands, with each state having multiple bands. There would need to be several levels of competition from regional up to the final competition. It could possibly work as an extension of whatever the current system is.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8klf2s",
                    "author": "SynthesizerofTheory",
                    "body": "I would say Drum Corps International already has something similar to this in their finals around August every year in Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis, Indiana (where the Colts play football). DCI is pretty much the \"neo classical\" genre of marching arts where I consider the standard college marching band to be a sort of \"pep\" style, and you will see for instance, that Academy 2016 and Blue Devils 2018 are the epitome imo of what the marching arts can bring out in terms of complexity, expressiveness, and story telling.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j8ka2b5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kbjd5",
                    "author": "Zipparumpazoo1",
                    "body": "Agreed.  Let two compete at the SB",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kddk0",
                    "author": "Catracho1594",
                    "body": "My question to you would be what type of new viewers would you be attracting? Certainly people that like college football are already tunning to watch the Super Bowl. If you\u2019re suggesting this I\u2019m assuming you watch a lot of college football. So if you were to watch a SB with 20 people that haven\u2019t watched a football game how could you convince them that a college band is a better product than an already established and famous artist? \nHaving Snoop Dog, Eminem, Kendrick or Rihanna is definitely more attractive than an Alabama or Georgia band. \nI\u2019ve never watched a college game but assuming they gave the halftime show for a Super Bowl. Could they produce 15-20 minutes worth of content that keeps people engaged?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kf5e7",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "100% the bands could produce the content to fill the time. \n\nAlso my thoughts re: who we'd attract are captured in some other comments, but I gave a delta earlier, and it's to say that if you took those performances and then overlaid a pop artist, I think that is the best model. The crossover is a truly new product specific to the halftime show.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8kddk0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kfa0t",
                    "author": "NotGnnaLie",
                    "body": "They don't pay the entertainers",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kfquz",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "Delta! \n\nI was wrong about this. Thanks for the correction.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8kfa0t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kk8zb",
                    "author": "SynthesizerofTheory",
                    "body": "Drum Corps International at the Super Bowl? Im listening... what would r/dci think about this?\n\nMy concern is it, Drum Corps International costs each performer at least $1500 per season, and it just isn't that cost effective to the eyes of the big people in charge to have 150 performers (color guard, brass, front ensemble, and drum line combined total) perform a 14 minute show, when a similar 14 minute show only takes 1-5 pop stars (though it may just end up equaling the same now that I think about it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kn9rn",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "I didn't know there was an r/dci... \n\nRe: the financials, Im operating on the idea that if it drives new viewers to the super bowl, the NFL will figure it out.\n\nThe NFL currently pays for all production and travel right now, I can't imagine it would this would surpass that existing budget.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8kk8zb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kkwzt",
                    "author": "czaritza",
                    "body": "\u201cPrior to the early 1990s, the halftime show featured university marching bands (the Grambling State University Marching Band has performed at the most Super Bowl halftime shows, featuring in six shows including at least one per decade from the 1960s to 1990), drill teams, and other performance ensembles such as Up with People. In the 90s, the halftime show began to feature major hit musicians, beginning with Super Bowl XXV (1991) with New Kids on the Block. *In an effort to boost the prominence of the halftime show to increase viewer interest, Super Bowl XXVII (1993) featured a headlining performance by Michael Jackson*.\u201d Straight from Wikipedia",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kmwok",
                    "author": "homarjr",
                    "body": "I would absolutely not watch that, what a terrible idea lol. \n\nYou're trying to draw in people who don't watch football for the most expensive ads of the year, you think anyone gives a shit about a college band?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kohy1",
                    "author": "testrail",
                    "body": "So a couple qualifiers before I make the arguement. Please understand I was in high school marching band, I am from Ohio which is home to TBDBITL, and this entire state respects marching band. We all get goosebumps watching a band spell something in cursive and cry when a Sousaphone player dots the \u201ci\u201d. \n\nI get what you're saying and would prefer a show like this. Personally I\u2019d love to see the TBDBITL just \"band fight\" the best HBCU band every year. It\u2019d be an incredible a spectacle.\n\nHOWEVER:\n\n1. The NFL doesn\u2019t spend on the performance. Entertainers do it out of their own pocket as it\u2019s basically a massive 13 minute ad for themselves.\n\n2. You say you want \"a compelling argument on the loss of revenue.\" I\u2019m not sure how to make that argument that doesn't just involve me saying look around. The market has spoken loudly and clearly that it doesn\u2019t value marching bands. The market values entertainers. This is an inarguable point. If you attempt to disagree with this you\u2019re in no uncertain terms arguing in bad faith. Full Stop. \n\nAllow me to explain further, since you seem to have some smarmy retorts. When is the next marching band concert you\u2019re going to exactly? How much were tickets? Are they touring the world? How many are they drawing? The answer to this question is it's not actually a thing outside of very niche circles. \n\nThese entertainers on the other hand will sell out massive arenas in minutes for massive sums of money just for the get in price. Clearly the market values entertainers over marching bands.\n\nThe idea that this isn\u2019t a clear and obvious loss in revenue if you put a marching band on instead of a famous artist is laughable. People will use the halftime show to grab a beer/food/bio break, like they do at every college halftime that\u2019s not in Columbus Ohio. Less eyeballs means less demand for the ad space before and after.  That also means smaller sponsorship dollars for the show itself.\n\nFor you to argue this doesn't change your view, you'd have to provide the following:\n\nClear and obvious proof that a sponsor would benefit more than the $50M Apple paid with a band playing vs. an entertainer\n\nClear and obvious proof there is a massive market of people who want to watch a marching band and not an entertainer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8n19xp",
                    "author": "pgm123",
                    "body": ">The NFL doesn\u2019t spend on the performance. Entertainers do it out of their own pocket as it\u2019s basically a massive 13 minute ad for themselves.\n\nThere are also corporate sponsors who pay the NFL.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j8kohy1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8koqpy",
                    "author": "TheChewyApple",
                    "body": "OK, let's take each of your points separately:\n\n>1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n\nThe average halftime show is budgeted around $10-15 million. For that, artists are paid union rates of [around $1030 per day, plus travel and expenses.](https://www.newsweek.com/super-bowl-2022-halftime-show-performers-paid-1678068). While the cost for a show based around a college band would be significantly lower, that would have to be weighed against the expected drop in viewers from not having a big name drawcard for the halftime show.\n\nAlso, why does it have to be the halftime show? Why couldn't the NFL run such a competition anyway and have the final as part of the Super Bowl festivities?\n\n>2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n\nRhianna's halftime show was the [most viewed halftime show of all time](https://en.as.com/entertainment/rihanna-breaks-record-with-most-watched-super-bowl-halftime-show-n/) and out-rated the game itself by over 5 million viewers. Excitement is entirely driven by who the NFL selects as the act. There is simply way more marketability in acts like Rhianna, Eminem, and The Weeknd compared to a college marching band.\n\n>3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nSo you make an argument based solely on personal opinion, yet later you say that personal opinions can't be used to CYV. That seems a bit strange.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kp046",
                    "author": "What_the_8",
                    "body": "Or I could just watch college football\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kpr29",
                    "author": "Babock93",
                    "body": "It would cheapen the halftime show and nobody would care",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8kub72",
                    "author": "Alba-Vulpix",
                    "body": "If you're not going to accept personal preference as an argument then you should step up YOUR argument to something other than \"I think\"\n\nAgain, nothing wrong with \"I think\" but if you don't accept it from others then it's worth nothing in your own conversation.\n\nSecondly, I don't know if you bothered to check how the \"spending\" works on halftime shows, but artists are not paid to be there, friend. The spending goes entirely to the performers, and the show itself, I mean, the Weekend dropped 7 million of his own cash on his show that year... Being an artist in the Super Bowl is not a gig, it's the biggest shoutout there is, with measurable increase to the sales of albums and number of listeners in streaming apps.\n\nSo if you want to \"repurpose\" the spending that the NFL drops on the half time show to give to some random college band... Well that's literally just the budget for the show itself, it's not cheaper for the NFL to hire the Alabama State Marching Band over Rihanna, so there literally is NO money saved, there's nothing to throw their way afterwards.\n\nAnd there is no way in hell you can pretend like a college band will attract more eyeballs than actual popular singers, so given that they're not even cheaper, do you need more? Or do you wanna drop another one of your \"I think\" s on us today?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8l183t",
                    "author": "Striker120v",
                    "body": "Look, Ohio State marching band is booked through for 15 solid years, there's no wiggle room.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8l9676",
                    "author": "kingofquackz",
                    "body": "You're vastly overestimating how much the NFL pays for the main artist (i.e. Rhianna). They get paid at union wage, which is basically trivial. In fact some of the cost of the performance is fronted by the artist/label themselves. This has been the case for a long time.   \n\nSo in essence, you don't save NFL any meaningful amount of money, while losing its ability to advertise and attract a global audience with world famous stars. And obviously a loss in advertisability = big loss in revenue",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lanel",
                    "author": "PeruanoLiberal2",
                    "body": "The answer is simple, money",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ljz14",
                    "author": "No_Election_3220",
                    "body": "I disagree, but even if we wanted to go this route it should be a DCI group. even the best college marching bands don't hold a candle to them",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lk3o1",
                    "author": "Ukasso",
                    "body": "Tell me you're a band geek without telling me you're a band geek....\n\n​\n\nWhat instrument do/did you play?",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ll2ip",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "Didn't. I played college ball.",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8lk3o1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lkqaj",
                    "author": "NoGoodNamesLeft55",
                    "body": "Beat it, nerd",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8llrjj",
                    "author": "gm4dm101",
                    "body": "Let me get you a time machine and you can enjoy that all you want",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8llty4",
                    "author": "anewleaf1234",
                    "body": "No one would care if there was a marching band.\n\nThe era when something like Up With People, and I say this as someone who is an alum, can do a superbowl show is over.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ln8fv",
                    "author": "kevkevlin",
                    "body": "Your argument is flawed purely based on the premise that college bands are more entertaining/bring in more viewers than entertainers at halftime. If it was that way why do stadiums not sell out for college bands compared to artists that sell out in minutes? That easily alone contradicts your argument. You also said what if bringing in another talent can bring in a broader viewership compared to losing these artists: it won't, you'll lose more viewers than you'll gain by switching. Your whole argument is based on if switching to band performances can grasp broader viewers to watch the Superbowl but you fail to realize at the end you'll be losing all those that tune in just to watch these artists perform.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lnn5q",
                    "author": "i_need_a_username201",
                    "body": "Not a bad argument but you forget how racist America is. The very best bands in the nation come from HBCUs. That\u2019s too \u201cwoke (black)\u201d for conservatives. When you have Stanford performing people will complain you\u2019re discriminating against the best bands by not having HBCUs perform. Then, if BET or anyone really, is smart they have an HBCU perform during halftime on a separate channel, which will split ratings. Totally not worth it and the nfl is better off continuing with the pop star tradition since they perform for free.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lo582",
                    "author": "fillmorecounty",
                    "body": "OSU would win every single year like it's not even close. Unless you had to not do the halftime show for a certain number of years after doing it, it would literally ALWAYS be OSU. You'd be seeing the same group every year and people would want variety.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lo7k2",
                    "author": "notnotaginger",
                    "body": "According to the network, viewership went up five million just for the halftime show. \n\n113 mil watched the football game, 118 watched the halftime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lpaxl",
                    "author": "butterthespank",
                    "body": "99% of nfl watchers aren\u2019t gonna give a flying fuck about a marching band.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8lr4tl",
                    "author": "thesasquatchhunter1",
                    "body": "OP, are you in a college band?",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8m1uws",
                    "author": "whyblametheskydaddy",
                    "body": "To quote the indefatigable Mike Myers, as Austin Powers, said with all the snark imaginable, 'How about nwoooooo!!\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8m5doe",
                    "author": "awesomefaceninjahead",
                    "body": "But what about the right-wing rage-bait dogwhistle economy?",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mce6d",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "I don't follow... What do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j8m5doe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mjdzw",
                    "author": "calripkenjk",
                    "body": "The first few halftime shows DID include a college marching band. They shifted away from this to include stars to draw killer viewers.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mlwig",
                    "author": "bluebunnyfunny",
                    "body": "Y\u2019all do know they used to do stuff like this until In Living Color made them switch it up by stealing all their views using musicians right\u2026?\n\nhttps://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTRtHHuWa/",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mq9q6",
                    "author": "yeahjustsayin",
                    "body": "That\u2019s what it used to be",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mr7ki",
                    "author": "wophi",
                    "body": "Here is the problem...\n\nAlmost everybody hates marching bands.  There is a reason they never show the halftime show in college sports.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mu5mq",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "yeah... agreed... there are lots of examples where its \"bad\". i'd have two thoughts: \n\n1. i'm thinking less \"marching oompa band\" and more \"drum line band\". you see that in college bands, but some other comments introduced me to \"Drum Corps International\", which i hadn't heard of, but is more akin to what i had in mind. \n2. relates to some deltas i've given: likely we can have best of both worlds. there is no reason to have to pick one or the other. do the band competition and award the halftime show, and the award is made *more* important b/c the band can perform w/ the major pop star.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8mr7ki"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mu9gf",
                    "author": "CaptainAwesome06",
                    "body": "If marching band performances were going to draw people in, we would already see them on TV.  I think you are going on your preferences and ignoring 100 years of market research.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mx8sh",
                    "author": "riotoustripod",
                    "body": "[Rihanna's halftime show](https://youtu.be/HjBo--1n8lI) currently has 45 million views on YouTube. The video was posted two days ago, and over a hundred million people already watched it live.\n\n[The Ohio State Michael Jackson Tribute](https://youtu.be/RhVAga3GhNM), the most-watched college marching band video I could find, has racked up 11 million views in *eight years.*\n\nThat's pretty clear evidence that people are less interested in any marching band than they were in this year's halftime show. Anecdotally, I've also been to an NFL game where a college marching band played at halftime, along with a couple of college games -- hardly anyone cares about the band. The high school I went to had an enormously successful marching band program, with multiple state championships, and nobody at the games paid them any attention aside from their parents.\n\nI'm sure there are a handful of diehard marching band aficionados who would tune into the Super Bowl halftime show whether they cared about football or not, but the idea that they outnumber the people who would watch one of the most popular entertainers of the last decade or two doesn't hold water.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8my2h1",
                    "author": "Hawkemsawkem",
                    "body": "This guy hates capitalism. First one of your points state that the money that goes to the entertainer could be repossessed? Repurposed to what? And fyi, the performers don\u2019t get paid. Rhiana didn\u2019t get paid for her performance. https://www.foxbusiness.com/entertainment/why-rihanna-not-paid-super-bowl-performance\n\nSecond in another area you mention viewership is down. That was the third most watched Super Bowl in history, I haven\u2019t seen any facts that point to viewers not tuning in. \n\nDid I care for her performance no, but I have watched every half time performance because you are always hoping to see something special. I thought this years was meh, but it turns out she did it while pregnant so kudos to her. \n\nAs far as bands go, I don\u2019t think that will draw in more viewers. 90% of the reason my wife and daughters watch the game with me is for the half time show. If you replace that with a college band, I can promise their interest won\u2019t be there. That may not affect my houses count in views but I can promise my house isn\u2019t the only one like that and may change the channel at half time to not hog the tv all day.  I see no way that bands are a net positive for ratings or views",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8n05kg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "you're right, i learned after the post the performers don't get paid. i don't hate capitalism, and certainly am not looking to \"repossess\" what people earn. i also enjoy the halftime show and look fwd to that surprise moment. i just think that is harder and harder to create w/ the same formula. \n\nre: \"3rd most watched\", i've heard that, but it conflicts what this: [https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/super-bowl-ratings-historical-viewership-chart-cbs-nbc-fox-abc/](https://www.sportsmediawatch.com/super-bowl-ratings-historical-viewership-chart-cbs-nbc-fox-abc/), which would make 2023 at 113.06 something like the 6th most watched. \n\ni agree that if all we did was swap out the performer for a band / drum line etc, its a lose. but the playoff series, i think, could be positioned as something like an \"america's got talent\" series. and by creating the drama around the series, we'd create a similar draw to the various story lines that would emerge. \n\nlastly, other commenters suggested this isn't a one or the other. you could do both models. i think you maintain the pop star draw, and then add the non-viewers who want to see the culmination of the competitive series. so you'd have rihanna over a drum line, or dre / em / mjb w/ a band. it addresses the \"draw\" factor of a pop icon, creates something totally unique to the halftime show, and creates more opportunity for the \"wow\" moment.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8my2h1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8mz1gl",
                    "author": "ExtraSmooth",
                    "body": "This was what the halftime show was until the 90s, when they changed to the current format because people were tuning out during halftime",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8n6b51",
                    "author": "brackattack27",
                    "body": "It would get less views. Many celebrities go to the games for the halftime show alone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8n9exb",
                    "author": "Sowf_Paw",
                    "body": "Dude, they don't even televise the half time show of ordinary college football games with these same college marching bands. \u00c0t best you get a short clip of the band playing when they go to a commercial. Why on earth do you think they would do this for the super bowl?",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ndvai",
                    "author": "Naive_Feed_726",
                    "body": "Better than having has beens who is ten years passed their prime",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8nfp1r",
                    "author": "tomtomglove",
                    "body": "I think you're wrong that it would increase viewership, but I totally support the change. We need to not only replace popular musicians with marching bands at the Super Bowl, we need to replace them through the culture more broadly.\n\nWe need The Band of the Fighting Irish competing for the number Billboard 1 song with the UCLA Bruin Marching Band!\n\nI will not rest until the nominees for all the Best Album Grammy category is ALL marching bands!",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9ijnvb",
                    "author": "StarChild413",
                    "body": "If marching bands take over the music industry who makes the songs for them to cover (as if you've got someone on vocals like this is Glee and got them making original songs you've basically turned the marching bands into \"actual\" bands to give them that kind of success)\n\nAnd remember you're not on r/crazyideas or r/unpopularopinion or any sub like that that seems to reward ideas for their weirdness",
                    "date": "2023-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8nfp1r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8o0oa7",
                    "author": "jr1169",
                    "body": "OP literally ignoring all the common sense questions everyone is asking like \u201cwhy would anyone care more about a random band over Rihanna? What grounds of evidence can you provide to demonstrate that anyone would be more interested in watching an absolutely niche group of artists instead of international proven sensations?\u201d\n\nOP would rather respond to people that give him a soapbox just so that they can say that MAYBE it COULD bring more viewers without providing any relevant evidence. Troll post entirely \ud83e\uddcc. Answer the basics OP!",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8o2dcq",
                    "author": "elizarayn",
                    "body": "I\u2019m not sure why you think this would be remotely popular idea. At the very basic level there isn\u2019t an interest in marching bands. My children\u2019s high school no longer uses the marching band to bring the football players on the field. They use popular music. This was done because the players wanted something besides band music to hype them up. The cheerleaders have been asking for years not to have to dance to the band playing and want to choose their own music. And there is now a push to have marching band perform before the games, basically before anyone arrives, so the cheerleaders can put on a halftime show using popular artists\u2019 music more like what you would see at a NFL game. Marching bands are very talented but it is a very small niche of people who are interested in watching.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8o6kh9",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "i agree w/ most everything you say. i think marching bands / drum lines, absent the correct context, are niche. i don't even have any unique / particular interest. i don't play an instrument, was never in a band, etc. \n\nbut there are some things, that while no one is interested normally, catapult in interest at the right time. christmas music, for example. so, we know that in the right conditions, sometimes people enjoy things they don't normally consume. \n\nand we also know that, w/ the correct preparation, people become interested in human stories. remember the \"axe wielding hitchhiker saves pedestrian\" thing? that guy got put on kimmel b/c we were all so fascinated w/ his story / background / etc. it was something we were not at all familiar w/. if we follow let's say 10 competitors across a playoff run, we would learn about individual story lines, there would be heroes and villains and surprises and drama. and people like drama. especially if its feel good drama. same reason we all want the dude to hit the mid court shot for a million bucks. \n\nbut others, and i gave deltas for this, agree w/ you that you can't completely replace the... limelight? marquis? gravitas of the big pop singer name, and suggested the best of both worlds is the pop-singer playing over the top of some cool drum line performance.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8o2dcq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8oc64y",
                    "author": "No_Dance1739",
                    "body": "So Grambling U will be performing the halftime show for the foreseeable future.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8opdm0",
                    "author": "ToKillAMockingAudi",
                    "body": "Entertainers are not paid for doing the Superbowl halftime show. In fact many of them pitch in their own money to make the show to their liking. So that punches a pretty big hole in your premise. The NFL having to fork over prize money for a halftime show that would garner a fraction of the viewership (take a glance at the YouTube views on Rihanna's show) is never going to happen when A-listers are literally paying to do it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8owyxe",
                    "author": "UsaPitManager",
                    "body": "No way, would that be fun for me, the avg home viewer",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8p13jv",
                    "author": "DillonTheFatUglyMale",
                    "body": "People wouldn't tune in",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8pcjf1",
                    "author": "KastleKingdom",
                    "body": ".",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8pcwby",
                    "author": "MikuEmpowered",
                    "body": "The point of NFL halftime is not just to \"entertain\", but also generate money. Rihanna generated 6 million additional viewers, is school bands going to have the same effect?\n\nThis isn't just a show, its a massive business venture. \n\nIf something fuk up, or the viewership drops, whos responsible? the school? or the band?\n\nAlso, singers don't actually get paid for these event, because its a massive \"exposure\" that will  boost their record sale, so whos paying for the band to get there and set up?",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8pj63z",
                    "author": "JustLondo",
                    "body": "I'm down with this! That would be pretty cool great idea. I didn't read all of the details but the headline won me over immediately.",
                    "date": "2023-02-15",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "112f6qg",
                    "author": "nhlms81",
                    "body": "The \"best\" can be selected by a voting process, or (my preference) thru some sort of competitive playoff system running parallel to the championship bowl series. I would not link the best band to the NCAA championship team. \n\nThe benefits are: \n\n1. We can repurpose the entertainer spend as a financial award to the winning school, the band program, a charity of the band's choosing, etc. something other than an entertainer / entertainment industry. \n2. It would re-establish some of the excitement about the halftime show that seems to have dwindled. \n3. I think the performances would be better / more creative / more exciting / more dramatic... ultimately, more entertaining. \n\nArguments that might move me away from this position might include: \n\n1. this would add some sort of negative influence on college bands, and they're better left alone. \n2. a compelling argument that the NFL would somehow lose out on revenue. by compelling, it can't simply be stating \"that they would\". i am dubious that they would, since i think more people would be interested in a band champ's performance than a professional entertainer. and if so, the NFL would sell more add revenue, not less. so convince me they'd sell less ads. \n3. that college bands wouldn't be able to put together a better product. i'm dubious here, but again, this sits in the, \"i might change my mind about this\" space. \n\nArguments that would not move me away from this position: \n\n1. personal preference arguments: \n   1. It wouldn't be fun. --> this is a a personal preference. i'm not saying you have to like it, but this argument doesn't address the unique benefits of allowing this be an award given to the best college band. \n   2. the performers are better --> again, a personal preference argument. \n2. its not realistic / practical / feasible --> perhaps, but not what im talking about",
                    "date": "2023-02-14",
                    "score": 514,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Instead of professional entertainers, the NFL Super Bowl halftime show should feature the nation's \"best\" college band.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/112f6qg/cmv_instead_of_professional_entertainers_the_nfl/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j918kal",
                    "author": "Jibblertaint",
                    "body": "LOL this is THE WORST TAKE I ever seen",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "112f6qg"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "114a85i",
                "author": "StoopSign",
                "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                "date": "2023-02-16",
                "score": 56,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8v9b8d",
                "author": "ghosting553",
                "body": "Do you have the same reaction to \"stop drop roll\" as \"run hide fight\"? Basic safety measures for emergencies are important to teach kids.",
                "date": "2023-02-16",
                "score": 65,
                "parent_id": "114a85i"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8va42z",
                "author": "StoopSign",
                "body": "\u0394 This changed my view by pointing out simple safety first slogans are common.",
                "date": "2023-02-16",
                "score": 25,
                "parent_id": "j8v9b8d"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8va749",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ghosting553 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ghosting553)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-16",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j8va42z"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6akq",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "You gotta see it from their point of view.\n\nIt may happen in 1/5,000 schools. But when you manage 115,000 of them. It's a pretty good bet that your training will be useful for someone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x9smh",
                    "author": "LiamTheHuman",
                    "body": "Just to play devil's advocate. If it happens in 1/5000 schools and there are 1000 kids per school and it takes 10 hrs total for all drills for each student then you use up 50,000,000 hours of time in minor(boredom) or somewhat larger(anxiety inducing) suffering. If a person lives 90 years then their full life is about 800,000 hours. If we assume that being prepared saves 2 lives at the school where it happens that means that to potentially save a couple lives you are generating 62.5 lifetimes worth of suffering/wasted time.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6akq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6bpf",
                    "author": "DrFishTaco",
                    "body": "Yet at the beginning of every flight the attendants go through emergency procedures\n\nAlso the number of kids who survive is increasing because of the tactics they learn in these drills\n\nAs long as firearms are easily accessible in this country, school shootings will continue to happen\n\nI\u2019ve never been in a school/workplace fire but we continue to practice drills for them so we act with purpose instead of react out of ignorance \n\nBetter to prepare children which has shown an increased rate of surviving then to just let them get mowed down",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 194,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v8cge",
                    "author": "Grunt08",
                    "body": ">Yet at the beginning of every flight the attendants go through emergency procedures\n\nThat most people ignore and that serve more to give passengers a sense that they might not die in a crash that will almost certainly kill them all.  Security theater is a thing.\n\nIt's more than a little disingenuous to compare active shooter drills that [even pro-gun control groups find abhorrent](https://youtu.be/PxgMVArPI-k?t=19) to a banal formality of air travel.  Active shooter drills aren't fire drills.\n\n>Also the number of kids who survive is increasing because of the tactics they learn in these drills\n\nThat's not something you could prove with any degree of credibility.  It also neglects to account for the cost of the damage done when we tell millions of children who are objectively safe that they ought to be fearing for their lives.\n\nEDIT - The Columbine shooters won.  They wrote their little manifesto and did what they did hoping, in an embryonic way, that they would precipitate more violence and the culture of fear we're now cultivating.  Now we ensure that every American child is irrationally afraid of their offspring.  Shame on us.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6bpf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6l78",
                    "author": "anewleaf1234",
                    "body": "When something keeps happening over and over again and there are zero steps to improve it people have the right be concerned \n\nI would imagine the large amounts of young people who seem to threaten people and who have access to firearms lead far more to culture of fear than actual attacks. I know of least four schools in which they went into real lockdowns because real events were happening Zero of them were school shootings .All of them had the chance to be bad.\n\nHell we have had people survive HS school shootings and then going to surviving Coll school shootings. \n\nthere are lots of near misses There are lots of troubled students who are found out.  There are lots of kids with kill lists and there are lots of troubled youth with access to firearms. \n\nAnd hell, when planes go down we have full investigations and do everything in our power to stop those incidents from happening again. When a kid shoots up a school we do nothing. Oh, wait, we offer thoughts and prayers, claim that in honor of the victims we shouldn't politicize their deaths, with two weeks and then do nothing.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92vwat",
                    "author": "MalekithofAngmar",
                    "body": "\u201cZero steps to improve it\u201d is just nonsense. You are conflating a nationwide gun crackdown, which hasn\u2019t happened, with progress as a whole. Many states, schools, communities, and even the nation have made steps that they believe will limit the damage or prevent school shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6l78"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6nl1",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": "As a society we regulate the shit out of air travel.\n\nLicenses for pilots and flight attendants and mechanics.  Training, standards, rules.\n\nRadar, controllers, airways.   Everything and everyone is certified, inspected, and overseen.\n\nNone of that exist for guns.\n\nIf any edgelord teenage whackjob could grab a plane from walmart, we'd be far more afraid of them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 40,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v7qks",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I understand thr psychology but school is still probably a safer place than just public in general.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": -12,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6nl1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v8lyg",
                    "author": "Arthesia",
                    "body": "How many lives have been saved by airplane safety precautions and pre-takeoff instructions? How many lives have been saved by shooter, or tornado drills in schools?\n\nAlso, in general it's disingenuous to only look at fatalities. What about injuries? Hell, what about *childhood trauma*? It's not simply a numbers game in terms of deaths, it affects everyone and the community where it happens. If a shooting kills 4 people, you can say \"it's only four people\", but it may be many more maimed/injured, teachers, children and parents traumatized, education for thousands completely disrupted, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x7njm",
                    "author": "LiamTheHuman",
                    "body": "It's not disingenuous because drills don't prevent childhood trauma or the effect on the community. They could prevent injuries and deaths so that's the stats that matter and really only the amount that would be prevented.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8v8lyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v935o",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">According to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nWhy are you only including ones with fatalities?",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vw5vf",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "Because most aren't even events with any relevant significance.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8v935o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v9lii",
                    "author": "TheMan5991",
                    "body": "No one ignores the instructions the first time they fly. You put your earphones in and ignore them after you\u2019ve done several flights and you already know the drill. Kids take a lot more repetition to remember some things so more frequent drills are important. The point of drills is that you become so familiar with it that you don\u2019t have to think about what to do while you\u2019re in a high stress situation. If it feels boring and repetitive, that means it\u2019s working. If the drill feels new and different, that means you haven\u2019t been paying enough attention.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vaw33",
                    "author": "kagekyaa",
                    "body": "the drill is Necessary for protection of the School just in case it happens. if there is no drills, parents will sue the school to the ground.\n\nsame thing with airplane.\n\nLaw is created not only for passengers or students safety but for the school and airline company. it must protect both.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vdm7p",
                    "author": "Annakinsky",
                    "body": "Any emergency preparedness drill done in schools is entirely to prevent panic. Fire drills, tornado drills, stay put, lock-down, evacuation, etc. The purpose of repeat drills is to create some form of regularity with emergency protocols, and avoid panic in emergency situations. Unfortunately in the US, the chances of being killed or injured at a school in an active-shooter situation is not zero. In fact, a student is more likely to be killed in a school shooting than in a fire or tornado on school grounds, yet you are not arguing the necessity of fire or tornado safety drills. \n\nIf a young child is flung into a active shooter situation with zero preparedness, they will panic. They will not know where to hide, they will not know how to stay quiet. They will not understand where to go if they are in the hallway or the bathroom. They unfortunately have to learn these things. A high schooler who has done the drill a million times may be apathetic, but they still need to know the safest area to hide in a classroom, safe exit strategies, potential weapons or defense options in a classroom. Additionally, schools implement new safety protocols and strategies almost every year, that need to be tested and taught. That's why we do these drills.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x6r4n",
                    "author": "mega_douche1",
                    "body": "They are better off panicking. Better to gtfo then follow a \"procedure\".\n\nSame as any sane adult would do in that situation. I would not be following any procedures in that event.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8vdm7p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8veqer",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": "We've had more than one mass shooting a day in 2023.\n\nHaven't had a passenger plane crash since 2009.\n\n\nSo yeah,   Shooters are more scary.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vw4bi",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "\n>We've had more than one mass shooting a day in 2023.\n\nSure, when you use the dishonest statistics pushed by gun grabbers that intentionally include a large amount of events not typically thought of as \"mass shootings\" by the general public.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j8veqer"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vfpcm",
                    "author": "gothicgamelabs",
                    "body": "The chances of dying in a fire is pretty small. I remember doing fire drills regularly, but I don't remember anyone ever being afraid of dying in a fire at school.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vishk",
                    "author": "Finch20",
                    "body": "Don't they do an entire safety briefing before every single flight? And aren't planes supposed to be able to evacuate all of their passengers in 90 seconds in case of emergency?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vm2dn",
                    "author": "light_hue_1",
                    "body": "School shootings are far more impactful than those statistics tell you. 1 student getting shot means that hundreds maybe thousands of students in that school were impacted and had to deal with the shootting.\n\nSince Columbine there have been 229 school shootings in schools with a total of 223,000 students.\n\nYou're looking at it as \"Only 279 have died\" but another way to look at it is \"200,000 had to deal with this\". Suddenly, schools don't feel so safe anymore when looked at it from this perspective.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vw1aa",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "You can balloon out any statistics like that once you're at the \"know a guy who knew a guy\" level of impact.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j8vm2dn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vm32j",
                    "author": "henrycavillwasntgood",
                    "body": "yes we are",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vt3ef",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "It\u2019s weird you use plane crashes as a comparison since every flight has a chat about how to survive a crash before take off.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wbksy",
                    "author": "oDids",
                    "body": "Gonna point out the obvious logical fallacy -\n\nIf a plane crashes, everyone dies. \nIn a school shooting, let's say 10 people die out of 1000 at the school. \n\nSo you might be equally likely to die as in a plane crash, but you're 100 times more likely to be involved in a school shooting.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8we6ss",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I mean there's far more deaths in plane crashes tbh.. Are you saying it's because students go to schoo every day. \n\nThe chances of dying in a school shooting are 1 in 614,000,000. \n\n(https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/577071/calculate-probability-of-dying-in-school-shooting-using-spatial-statistics\n\nYou can question the math in here and should but it's still exceedingly rare)\n\nEven 100 mote likely than that is very unlikely.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8wbksy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wd1zx",
                    "author": "No_Chapter_948",
                    "body": "I think the school shooting drills are an excellent way to prepare kids for basic survival that could clearly take with them into adulthood.  \n\nIt's unfortunate school shootings keep happening.  If we would all be kind and respectful of each other, teach our kids the same, just maybe there would be less of this.  Bullying and mean teasing has gotten out of hand.  I'm that child who was bullied and mean teased while at school, this was in the 70s and early 80s.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wits3",
                    "author": "lovePigshateCops",
                    "body": "plane crashes don't happen. shootings happen every day in america. you can get shot at a walmart, at the mall, at school, at the movies, at the park, in church. i bet if humans could make a list of every single type of place you could be: america has had a shooting there\n\nyou're only gonna get in a plane crash if you get into a plane and even then it's exceedingly unlikely to happen, unlike a shooting, which isn't unlikely to happen, it's just not likely to happen. two different things.\n\nthere also isn't a trend of more and more planecrashes happening as flying became more readily available. actually it's the opposite. there are less crashes now than ever. there are more shootings now than ever.\n\ni don't need to worry about plane crashes because i rarely go on planes. \n\ni do need to worry about mass shootings because i live in america.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wpwe2",
                    "author": "Ethan-Wakefield",
                    "body": "Teacher here. From my perspective working at a school that doesn\u2019t do drills, people are more scared that we don\u2019t do them because it feels like admitting that we can\u2019t do anything. \n\nMy school did a safety training almost 10 years ago. We got the \u201crun, hide, fight\u201d training. The training said, it\u2019s real simple. You hear gunshots, you run the other way. Run the exact opposite way because that\u2019s taking you away from danger the fastest. I asked, what happens if a shooter knows about our safety trainings and gets another shooter to wait in ambush to funnel us away from the first shooter and into his line of fire to kill more people?\n\nThe trainer\u2019s answer was (and I\u2019m quoting as closely as I can), \u201cWell that\u2019s going to be a real bad day.\u201d And then he asked if there were any other questions. \n\nWe have since stopped doing safety trainings because they\u2019re so clearly useless.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wq5i9",
                    "author": "Tr3sp4ss3r",
                    "body": " \n>The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes.\n\nAt the beginning of every single commercial airline take off, you are given instructions regarding what to do in emergencies, the air masks that will fall, the exit functions, and more.\n\nSo, you gave me the best argument I could think of as to why kids should be instructed in case of school shooting. \n\nPlanes almost never crash. Yet there is good reason for the instructions, right?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x1lrp",
                    "author": "nyxe12",
                    "body": "Every single flight has a safety debriefing during takeoff. The idea that we're \"not afraid\" of plane crashes is just not true. If we were treating school shootings like plane crashes, kids would get a drill every morning about school shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x2egi",
                    "author": "RMSQM",
                    "body": "Gun violence is the number one cause of death for children in the U.S.  Number of children who died on airlines in the U.S. this year, zero. Pretty bad comparison.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x45ww",
                    "author": "Joosterguy",
                    "body": "The chances of a school shooting shouldn't be *low*, they should be *zero*.\n\nThe fear is valid, because any chance at all is unacceptable. The issue is that the fear's being channelled in the wrong direction. Instead of drills, the result should be legislation removing the possibility of a mass shooting.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8xiv71",
                    "author": "Redditor274929",
                    "body": "I'm not American and we don't get avtive shooter drills or mass shootings. However we still do fire drills at least once per term. Flight attendants still go through safety precautions too. Its a reasonable possibility even if the chances are low and therefore the school has to make sure that everyone knows how to stay safe if the worst were to happen. Some places do earthquake drills and the likes too. Fear is better than being shot to death and dying at 10 years old bc you didn't know how to react and no preparations or safety precautions were put in place",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8xyyuy",
                    "author": "BadAlphas",
                    "body": "Nearly all victims of plane crashes can't do anything to survive the event. Not so of school shootings. Thus, the drills for school shootings but not airplane crashes.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8xz3p2",
                    "author": "00PT",
                    "body": "Why is it wrong to prepare for a possible occurrence, even if that occurrence is unlikely to occur? The best plans leave no holes, they don't just patch things up until success is probable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8y0sy6",
                    "author": "beltalowda_oye",
                    "body": "As a society, driving is more likely to get you killed too or just walking out in areas where cars commute.\n\nHowever it's still different. I believe cars can be used as weapons so we shouldn't treat it like nothing but these types of topics are not a either or issue with guns. You can and should tackle both issues and we are doing just that. The active shooter drills are just that. While in school it may not be useful, consider how it CAN be useful in saving lives or harm reduction where you cannot physically stop shootings from occurring. Consider how in hospitals such drills can be addressed and how it might be able to save lives. \n\nAn analogy is learning CPR. Is being cpr certified a product of culture of fear or culture of being proactive and prepared? I think it depends on the individual interpreting rhe situation but objectively I believe it is proactive and prep.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yaygq",
                    "author": "gslavik",
                    "body": "Tall office buildings in NYC have fire drills/training at least once a year for all the people who work there. Then there are multiple fire system tests throughout the year.\n\nThere aren't a lot of fires in tall office buildings in NYC. :)",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yf89e",
                    "author": "MaxwellzDaemon",
                    "body": "These drills are a way to pretend to deal with the problem without actually changing anything.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yicat",
                    "author": "ChronoFish",
                    "body": "There is a lot of federal safety standards around the airplane industry. Specifically because people were dying regularly and the federal government recognized that trust in airline travel is critical for modern day commerce. Everything from who can pilot to how a structure is inspected by the FAA.\n\nAre you suggesting that schools be taken over by the federal government and inspected to ensure that are \"at least as safe as the airline industry\"?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ylz19",
                    "author": "AfraidInspection2894",
                    "body": "School shooter drills are just like lock downs and fire drills. Hopefully you will never be in a situation where you need to know what to do but in the chance that you are you need to be prepared not only to help save your life but the lives of those around you. Its about being prepared in case the worst happens.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ymfau",
                    "author": "Deathbeforedecaf84",
                    "body": "Even a slight chance is a chance. Emergency preparedness is a part of life, and school shootings aren't going down, they're in fact, more prevalent.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yo2y3",
                    "author": "parlimentery",
                    "body": "Your position really doesn't address the issues with the alternative. Do you think kids wouldn't be fearful if the drills didn't happen? They see the same stories on the news, know that no one is going to do anything about it politically, and then they come to school and learn that their school isn't doing anything to create the most basic last line of defense. I would be pretty damn scared if I went to that school.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yss7j",
                    "author": "Vantahate",
                    "body": "As a member of society, I would like to inform you that we are, in fact, bloody terrified of plane crashes",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yxftc",
                    "author": "Dunnoaboutu",
                    "body": "My kids (15,13,9) think about the shooting drills the same as I thought about earthquake and tornado drills. When Uvalde happened they didn\u2019t even blink. It\u2019s not only my kids, but all my friend\u2019s kids are the same. I have a hard time believing that it\u2019s causing a culture of fear when they are apathetic about them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z0m8g",
                    "author": "EmpRupus",
                    "body": "> As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes\n\nI'm confused - we are afraid of plane crashes. We DO have drill demonstrations every time you onboard a plane. The flight attendants tell you about emergency exits, oxygen masks etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z4wdw",
                    "author": "Candid_Dream4110",
                    "body": "School shootings aren't accidents. Plane crashes are.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z6by2",
                    "author": "beasttyme",
                    "body": "The problem with school drills to me is how so predictable they are. The shooter is sitting right there in these drills learning like everyone else and if smart enough can strategize ways around them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z7sb2",
                    "author": "Captain_Hammertoe",
                    "body": "The vast majority of Americans under 18 don't fly every day.  They DO go to school every day.  I will guarantee you that aviation professionals such as pilots, people who fly every day, are ABSOLUTELY concerned with safety and with anything that could cause a crash.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z86dw",
                    "author": "CatCow_1",
                    "body": "Yeah, most people don't personally encounter a school shooting in the their lifetime, but I put it on par with firedrills and those safety demonstrations they do before your flight takes off. I don't see how they are that much different since the goal is to keep yourself safe just in case it does happen.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zbh90",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Yeah several people referenced this and I may edit the post to reflect this. I touched on the flight safety instructions in the post talking about how people used to flying just put earbuds in during them. In much the same way that kids by middleschool joke and laugh at firedrills. Still fires are far more common than shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8z86dw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z8omz",
                    "author": "Sarcasm-n-Caffeine",
                    "body": "There were over a hundred shootings in '22...can you link me to a hundred plane crashes in the last year?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8za3ot",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "According to The Washington Post, there were 46 shootings at K-12 schools in 2022,\n\nhttps://truthout.org/articles/2022-was-worst-year-for-school-shootings-by-nearly-every-meaningful-measure/\n\nDo you have a link for your number. I don't quite know if there were 46 plane crashes in 2022 but the numbers don't matter when the likelihood is exceedingly low. A statistically insignificant percentage of children die in school shootings. If it made the news every time a teacher assaulted a student we'd be homeschooling all kids by now.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8z8omz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zaq9q",
                    "author": "NotGnnaLie",
                    "body": "The chances of dying in one are not low enough.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zft68",
                    "author": "jacobsonjohn287",
                    "body": "\"Manufacturing Consent\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j902t22",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Manufacturing Fear",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8zft68"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zgbu9",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "This can be easily solved. Have a few special ops teams rotate around the schools and stay hidden. School shooters will think twice. The other thing we need to do is have police snipers at large events. If someone pulls a gun and starts shooting, there will already be someone in a position to engage.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9034kl",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I mean, I oppose the amount of troops just eating canned beans in the desert to prop up our empire. I've always said the natl guard and reserves could be doing infrastructure work. It's not a bad idea to have trained military guy overseeing the resource officer and having no contact with the students. Just appears to be an administrative worker",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8zgbu9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zsa4g",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "Inevitably, mass shootings are difficult to defend against because they go after targets of opportunity, secure the schools, you'll get them at malls, or grocery stores, or anywhere else that isn't prepared to defend against such an attack. \n\nWhile training kids how to properly evacuate isn't exactly a bad idea, i fear that it may actually cause more shootings, given it normalizes them in a way. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to just have a generalized intruder drill that's a bit less specific.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zyoil",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I've always said it's the media attention drawn to the school shootings. It's very common to see \"one shot in school shooting\" in a crappy neighborhood and write it off as a city or poverty problem. School shootings are terrorism aimed at the middle and upper classes. The manifestos, drawings, plans and trials have made this a desireable path for a stark minority of the most deranged. I hit at the media for promoting fear and it's a non-partisan aspect of corporate media. \n\n-----------\n\nGeneralized intruder drills don't make the best sense. Shooters can be students and also have had the drills. Intruders probably get in to schools sometimes. Nothing is very secure. As high schoolers we intruded into the middle school just to mess around. I assume some are apprehended for trespassing but most are probably cut loose if apprehended unless they commit an offense at the school. I had a friend expelled from highschool for criminal trespass. It was his third expulsion appeal and he went to school while suspended. Crime happens at schools. All manner of it. Students and staff are the likeliest perps.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8zsa4g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zx2uk",
                    "author": "Rocky_Bukkake",
                    "body": "i always find it strange when things are reduced to their death toll as a static number. an airplane is an immensely useful tool and a brilliant invention; it can bring one to any other place in the world, enable ease of travel, and is otherwise a positive sign of progress for society. \n\na school shooting is purely an act of cruel terrorism. there is nothing positive gained from a school shooting: it is not an invention, it is not a tool, and lives are senselessly destroyed, as a **hard rule**. \n\ni see this argument as equally as fallacious as antivax stances. the antivax crowd likes to say that natural immunity is as effective as a vaccine, without taking into account long-term side effects, non-vaxxed people dying at a much higher rate, or generally ignoring the vast breadth of experiences or levels of living between \"dead\" and \"survived\".",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zxkjf",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Homie. You're comparing an airplane to a school shooting.  Makes no sense. Absurd analogy. Compare an airplane to a school. Hell go at me and compare an airplane to a gun. They're both tools of war.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8zx2uk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j901u92",
                    "author": "brimstoneph",
                    "body": "I road in an 8 passenger plane a few times last year and i can confidently say i am scared of plane crashes",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j902q7t",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I believe it. prop planes feel different and I've never been in a tiny one.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j901u92"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j90hv9u",
                    "author": "CoriolisInSoup",
                    "body": "We are worried about plane crashes.  It's the main and legal purpose of cabin crew, you have seat belts, life jackets, oxygen masks and a briefing on each flight on how to use them, and the crew train regularly on emergency evacuations.  \nLow volume of deaths is not a reason to not be concerned about it, particularly if the deaths are that tragic and socially damaging.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j90z4aw",
                    "author": "Calm-Literature5066",
                    "body": "But then flights often have crash preparedness checks.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92i8f5",
                    "author": "Kindly-Name-1099",
                    "body": "The Columbine Shooting is a good example - \n\nMany students died and injured, many hid and still died. The better hidden the better chance at survival though.\n\nOne kid was mentally disabled due to a stroke and couldn't figure out what was happening, he sat in his chair and was shot.\n\nI don't know where you live, but I grew up Military and have always heard/practiced fire safety, bomb safety, Shooting, etc. drills. \n\nThe likehood of getting bombed in school? Low. But it was practiced.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9e47et",
                    "author": "crocodiddly",
                    "body": "Fire drills are necessary so that students have a gameplan of what to do in the insanely traumatic and frightful occurance that would be a school shooting. Firearms are unfortunately easily accessible in the country, and it would be extremely unsafe to just let kids \"go with their gut\" when it comes to a clearly dangerous life or death matter.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "114a85i",
                "author": "StoopSign",
                "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                "date": "2023-02-16",
                "score": 56,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8zrg6i",
                "author": "historical_cats",
                "body": "It\u2019s still important to be prepared for one though. We prepare for exceedingly unlikely events all the time. Also, I would think that any skills learned in a school shooting drill would be applicable to shootings outside of a school setting (which I think are more common?) so they could potentially prepare kids for these too.",
                "date": "2023-02-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "114a85i"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8zz65a",
                "author": "StoopSign",
                "body": "\u0394 You gettin a delta bro.. This comment explains why my criticism of school shooting drills is limited in scope because they could be applicable to any active shooter scenario. It could apply to any shooting too. I've heard some shots and crime is up. Good point.",
                "date": "2023-02-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j8zrg6i"
            },
            {
                "id": "j8zz840",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/historical_cats ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/historical_cats)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j8zz65a"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6akq",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "You gotta see it from their point of view.\n\nIt may happen in 1/5,000 schools. But when you manage 115,000 of them. It's a pretty good bet that your training will be useful for someone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x9smh",
                    "author": "LiamTheHuman",
                    "body": "Just to play devil's advocate. If it happens in 1/5000 schools and there are 1000 kids per school and it takes 10 hrs total for all drills for each student then you use up 50,000,000 hours of time in minor(boredom) or somewhat larger(anxiety inducing) suffering. If a person lives 90 years then their full life is about 800,000 hours. If we assume that being prepared saves 2 lives at the school where it happens that means that to potentially save a couple lives you are generating 62.5 lifetimes worth of suffering/wasted time.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6akq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6bpf",
                    "author": "DrFishTaco",
                    "body": "Yet at the beginning of every flight the attendants go through emergency procedures\n\nAlso the number of kids who survive is increasing because of the tactics they learn in these drills\n\nAs long as firearms are easily accessible in this country, school shootings will continue to happen\n\nI\u2019ve never been in a school/workplace fire but we continue to practice drills for them so we act with purpose instead of react out of ignorance \n\nBetter to prepare children which has shown an increased rate of surviving then to just let them get mowed down",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 194,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v8cge",
                    "author": "Grunt08",
                    "body": ">Yet at the beginning of every flight the attendants go through emergency procedures\n\nThat most people ignore and that serve more to give passengers a sense that they might not die in a crash that will almost certainly kill them all.  Security theater is a thing.\n\nIt's more than a little disingenuous to compare active shooter drills that [even pro-gun control groups find abhorrent](https://youtu.be/PxgMVArPI-k?t=19) to a banal formality of air travel.  Active shooter drills aren't fire drills.\n\n>Also the number of kids who survive is increasing because of the tactics they learn in these drills\n\nThat's not something you could prove with any degree of credibility.  It also neglects to account for the cost of the damage done when we tell millions of children who are objectively safe that they ought to be fearing for their lives.\n\nEDIT - The Columbine shooters won.  They wrote their little manifesto and did what they did hoping, in an embryonic way, that they would precipitate more violence and the culture of fear we're now cultivating.  Now we ensure that every American child is irrationally afraid of their offspring.  Shame on us.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6bpf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6l78",
                    "author": "anewleaf1234",
                    "body": "When something keeps happening over and over again and there are zero steps to improve it people have the right be concerned \n\nI would imagine the large amounts of young people who seem to threaten people and who have access to firearms lead far more to culture of fear than actual attacks. I know of least four schools in which they went into real lockdowns because real events were happening Zero of them were school shootings .All of them had the chance to be bad.\n\nHell we have had people survive HS school shootings and then going to surviving Coll school shootings. \n\nthere are lots of near misses There are lots of troubled students who are found out.  There are lots of kids with kill lists and there are lots of troubled youth with access to firearms. \n\nAnd hell, when planes go down we have full investigations and do everything in our power to stop those incidents from happening again. When a kid shoots up a school we do nothing. Oh, wait, we offer thoughts and prayers, claim that in honor of the victims we shouldn't politicize their deaths, with two weeks and then do nothing.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92vwat",
                    "author": "MalekithofAngmar",
                    "body": "\u201cZero steps to improve it\u201d is just nonsense. You are conflating a nationwide gun crackdown, which hasn\u2019t happened, with progress as a whole. Many states, schools, communities, and even the nation have made steps that they believe will limit the damage or prevent school shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6l78"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v6nl1",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": "As a society we regulate the shit out of air travel.\n\nLicenses for pilots and flight attendants and mechanics.  Training, standards, rules.\n\nRadar, controllers, airways.   Everything and everyone is certified, inspected, and overseen.\n\nNone of that exist for guns.\n\nIf any edgelord teenage whackjob could grab a plane from walmart, we'd be far more afraid of them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 40,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v7qks",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I understand thr psychology but school is still probably a safer place than just public in general.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": -12,
                    "parent_id": "j8v6nl1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v8lyg",
                    "author": "Arthesia",
                    "body": "How many lives have been saved by airplane safety precautions and pre-takeoff instructions? How many lives have been saved by shooter, or tornado drills in schools?\n\nAlso, in general it's disingenuous to only look at fatalities. What about injuries? Hell, what about *childhood trauma*? It's not simply a numbers game in terms of deaths, it affects everyone and the community where it happens. If a shooting kills 4 people, you can say \"it's only four people\", but it may be many more maimed/injured, teachers, children and parents traumatized, education for thousands completely disrupted, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x7njm",
                    "author": "LiamTheHuman",
                    "body": "It's not disingenuous because drills don't prevent childhood trauma or the effect on the community. They could prevent injuries and deaths so that's the stats that matter and really only the amount that would be prevented.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8v8lyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v935o",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">According to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nWhy are you only including ones with fatalities?",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vw5vf",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "Because most aren't even events with any relevant significance.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8v935o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8v9lii",
                    "author": "TheMan5991",
                    "body": "No one ignores the instructions the first time they fly. You put your earphones in and ignore them after you\u2019ve done several flights and you already know the drill. Kids take a lot more repetition to remember some things so more frequent drills are important. The point of drills is that you become so familiar with it that you don\u2019t have to think about what to do while you\u2019re in a high stress situation. If it feels boring and repetitive, that means it\u2019s working. If the drill feels new and different, that means you haven\u2019t been paying enough attention.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vaw33",
                    "author": "kagekyaa",
                    "body": "the drill is Necessary for protection of the School just in case it happens. if there is no drills, parents will sue the school to the ground.\n\nsame thing with airplane.\n\nLaw is created not only for passengers or students safety but for the school and airline company. it must protect both.",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vdm7p",
                    "author": "Annakinsky",
                    "body": "Any emergency preparedness drill done in schools is entirely to prevent panic. Fire drills, tornado drills, stay put, lock-down, evacuation, etc. The purpose of repeat drills is to create some form of regularity with emergency protocols, and avoid panic in emergency situations. Unfortunately in the US, the chances of being killed or injured at a school in an active-shooter situation is not zero. In fact, a student is more likely to be killed in a school shooting than in a fire or tornado on school grounds, yet you are not arguing the necessity of fire or tornado safety drills. \n\nIf a young child is flung into a active shooter situation with zero preparedness, they will panic. They will not know where to hide, they will not know how to stay quiet. They will not understand where to go if they are in the hallway or the bathroom. They unfortunately have to learn these things. A high schooler who has done the drill a million times may be apathetic, but they still need to know the safest area to hide in a classroom, safe exit strategies, potential weapons or defense options in a classroom. Additionally, schools implement new safety protocols and strategies almost every year, that need to be tested and taught. That's why we do these drills.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x6r4n",
                    "author": "mega_douche1",
                    "body": "They are better off panicking. Better to gtfo then follow a \"procedure\".\n\nSame as any sane adult would do in that situation. I would not be following any procedures in that event.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8vdm7p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8veqer",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": "We've had more than one mass shooting a day in 2023.\n\nHaven't had a passenger plane crash since 2009.\n\n\nSo yeah,   Shooters are more scary.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vw4bi",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "\n>We've had more than one mass shooting a day in 2023.\n\nSure, when you use the dishonest statistics pushed by gun grabbers that intentionally include a large amount of events not typically thought of as \"mass shootings\" by the general public.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j8veqer"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vfpcm",
                    "author": "gothicgamelabs",
                    "body": "The chances of dying in a fire is pretty small. I remember doing fire drills regularly, but I don't remember anyone ever being afraid of dying in a fire at school.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vishk",
                    "author": "Finch20",
                    "body": "Don't they do an entire safety briefing before every single flight? And aren't planes supposed to be able to evacuate all of their passengers in 90 seconds in case of emergency?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vm2dn",
                    "author": "light_hue_1",
                    "body": "School shootings are far more impactful than those statistics tell you. 1 student getting shot means that hundreds maybe thousands of students in that school were impacted and had to deal with the shootting.\n\nSince Columbine there have been 229 school shootings in schools with a total of 223,000 students.\n\nYou're looking at it as \"Only 279 have died\" but another way to look at it is \"200,000 had to deal with this\". Suddenly, schools don't feel so safe anymore when looked at it from this perspective.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vw1aa",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "You can balloon out any statistics like that once you're at the \"know a guy who knew a guy\" level of impact.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j8vm2dn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vm32j",
                    "author": "henrycavillwasntgood",
                    "body": "yes we are",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8vt3ef",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "It\u2019s weird you use plane crashes as a comparison since every flight has a chat about how to survive a crash before take off.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wbksy",
                    "author": "oDids",
                    "body": "Gonna point out the obvious logical fallacy -\n\nIf a plane crashes, everyone dies. \nIn a school shooting, let's say 10 people die out of 1000 at the school. \n\nSo you might be equally likely to die as in a plane crash, but you're 100 times more likely to be involved in a school shooting.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8we6ss",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I mean there's far more deaths in plane crashes tbh.. Are you saying it's because students go to schoo every day. \n\nThe chances of dying in a school shooting are 1 in 614,000,000. \n\n(https://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/577071/calculate-probability-of-dying-in-school-shooting-using-spatial-statistics\n\nYou can question the math in here and should but it's still exceedingly rare)\n\nEven 100 mote likely than that is very unlikely.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j8wbksy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wd1zx",
                    "author": "No_Chapter_948",
                    "body": "I think the school shooting drills are an excellent way to prepare kids for basic survival that could clearly take with them into adulthood.  \n\nIt's unfortunate school shootings keep happening.  If we would all be kind and respectful of each other, teach our kids the same, just maybe there would be less of this.  Bullying and mean teasing has gotten out of hand.  I'm that child who was bullied and mean teased while at school, this was in the 70s and early 80s.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wits3",
                    "author": "lovePigshateCops",
                    "body": "plane crashes don't happen. shootings happen every day in america. you can get shot at a walmart, at the mall, at school, at the movies, at the park, in church. i bet if humans could make a list of every single type of place you could be: america has had a shooting there\n\nyou're only gonna get in a plane crash if you get into a plane and even then it's exceedingly unlikely to happen, unlike a shooting, which isn't unlikely to happen, it's just not likely to happen. two different things.\n\nthere also isn't a trend of more and more planecrashes happening as flying became more readily available. actually it's the opposite. there are less crashes now than ever. there are more shootings now than ever.\n\ni don't need to worry about plane crashes because i rarely go on planes. \n\ni do need to worry about mass shootings because i live in america.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wpwe2",
                    "author": "Ethan-Wakefield",
                    "body": "Teacher here. From my perspective working at a school that doesn\u2019t do drills, people are more scared that we don\u2019t do them because it feels like admitting that we can\u2019t do anything. \n\nMy school did a safety training almost 10 years ago. We got the \u201crun, hide, fight\u201d training. The training said, it\u2019s real simple. You hear gunshots, you run the other way. Run the exact opposite way because that\u2019s taking you away from danger the fastest. I asked, what happens if a shooter knows about our safety trainings and gets another shooter to wait in ambush to funnel us away from the first shooter and into his line of fire to kill more people?\n\nThe trainer\u2019s answer was (and I\u2019m quoting as closely as I can), \u201cWell that\u2019s going to be a real bad day.\u201d And then he asked if there were any other questions. \n\nWe have since stopped doing safety trainings because they\u2019re so clearly useless.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8wq5i9",
                    "author": "Tr3sp4ss3r",
                    "body": " \n>The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes.\n\nAt the beginning of every single commercial airline take off, you are given instructions regarding what to do in emergencies, the air masks that will fall, the exit functions, and more.\n\nSo, you gave me the best argument I could think of as to why kids should be instructed in case of school shooting. \n\nPlanes almost never crash. Yet there is good reason for the instructions, right?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x1lrp",
                    "author": "nyxe12",
                    "body": "Every single flight has a safety debriefing during takeoff. The idea that we're \"not afraid\" of plane crashes is just not true. If we were treating school shootings like plane crashes, kids would get a drill every morning about school shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x2egi",
                    "author": "RMSQM",
                    "body": "Gun violence is the number one cause of death for children in the U.S.  Number of children who died on airlines in the U.S. this year, zero. Pretty bad comparison.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8x45ww",
                    "author": "Joosterguy",
                    "body": "The chances of a school shooting shouldn't be *low*, they should be *zero*.\n\nThe fear is valid, because any chance at all is unacceptable. The issue is that the fear's being channelled in the wrong direction. Instead of drills, the result should be legislation removing the possibility of a mass shooting.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8xiv71",
                    "author": "Redditor274929",
                    "body": "I'm not American and we don't get avtive shooter drills or mass shootings. However we still do fire drills at least once per term. Flight attendants still go through safety precautions too. Its a reasonable possibility even if the chances are low and therefore the school has to make sure that everyone knows how to stay safe if the worst were to happen. Some places do earthquake drills and the likes too. Fear is better than being shot to death and dying at 10 years old bc you didn't know how to react and no preparations or safety precautions were put in place",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8xyyuy",
                    "author": "BadAlphas",
                    "body": "Nearly all victims of plane crashes can't do anything to survive the event. Not so of school shootings. Thus, the drills for school shootings but not airplane crashes.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8xz3p2",
                    "author": "00PT",
                    "body": "Why is it wrong to prepare for a possible occurrence, even if that occurrence is unlikely to occur? The best plans leave no holes, they don't just patch things up until success is probable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8y0sy6",
                    "author": "beltalowda_oye",
                    "body": "As a society, driving is more likely to get you killed too or just walking out in areas where cars commute.\n\nHowever it's still different. I believe cars can be used as weapons so we shouldn't treat it like nothing but these types of topics are not a either or issue with guns. You can and should tackle both issues and we are doing just that. The active shooter drills are just that. While in school it may not be useful, consider how it CAN be useful in saving lives or harm reduction where you cannot physically stop shootings from occurring. Consider how in hospitals such drills can be addressed and how it might be able to save lives. \n\nAn analogy is learning CPR. Is being cpr certified a product of culture of fear or culture of being proactive and prepared? I think it depends on the individual interpreting rhe situation but objectively I believe it is proactive and prep.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yaygq",
                    "author": "gslavik",
                    "body": "Tall office buildings in NYC have fire drills/training at least once a year for all the people who work there. Then there are multiple fire system tests throughout the year.\n\nThere aren't a lot of fires in tall office buildings in NYC. :)",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yf89e",
                    "author": "MaxwellzDaemon",
                    "body": "These drills are a way to pretend to deal with the problem without actually changing anything.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yicat",
                    "author": "ChronoFish",
                    "body": "There is a lot of federal safety standards around the airplane industry. Specifically because people were dying regularly and the federal government recognized that trust in airline travel is critical for modern day commerce. Everything from who can pilot to how a structure is inspected by the FAA.\n\nAre you suggesting that schools be taken over by the federal government and inspected to ensure that are \"at least as safe as the airline industry\"?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ylz19",
                    "author": "AfraidInspection2894",
                    "body": "School shooter drills are just like lock downs and fire drills. Hopefully you will never be in a situation where you need to know what to do but in the chance that you are you need to be prepared not only to help save your life but the lives of those around you. Its about being prepared in case the worst happens.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8ymfau",
                    "author": "Deathbeforedecaf84",
                    "body": "Even a slight chance is a chance. Emergency preparedness is a part of life, and school shootings aren't going down, they're in fact, more prevalent.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yo2y3",
                    "author": "parlimentery",
                    "body": "Your position really doesn't address the issues with the alternative. Do you think kids wouldn't be fearful if the drills didn't happen? They see the same stories on the news, know that no one is going to do anything about it politically, and then they come to school and learn that their school isn't doing anything to create the most basic last line of defense. I would be pretty damn scared if I went to that school.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yss7j",
                    "author": "Vantahate",
                    "body": "As a member of society, I would like to inform you that we are, in fact, bloody terrified of plane crashes",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8yxftc",
                    "author": "Dunnoaboutu",
                    "body": "My kids (15,13,9) think about the shooting drills the same as I thought about earthquake and tornado drills. When Uvalde happened they didn\u2019t even blink. It\u2019s not only my kids, but all my friend\u2019s kids are the same. I have a hard time believing that it\u2019s causing a culture of fear when they are apathetic about them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z0m8g",
                    "author": "EmpRupus",
                    "body": "> As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes\n\nI'm confused - we are afraid of plane crashes. We DO have drill demonstrations every time you onboard a plane. The flight attendants tell you about emergency exits, oxygen masks etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z4wdw",
                    "author": "Candid_Dream4110",
                    "body": "School shootings aren't accidents. Plane crashes are.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z6by2",
                    "author": "beasttyme",
                    "body": "The problem with school drills to me is how so predictable they are. The shooter is sitting right there in these drills learning like everyone else and if smart enough can strategize ways around them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z7sb2",
                    "author": "Captain_Hammertoe",
                    "body": "The vast majority of Americans under 18 don't fly every day.  They DO go to school every day.  I will guarantee you that aviation professionals such as pilots, people who fly every day, are ABSOLUTELY concerned with safety and with anything that could cause a crash.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z86dw",
                    "author": "CatCow_1",
                    "body": "Yeah, most people don't personally encounter a school shooting in the their lifetime, but I put it on par with firedrills and those safety demonstrations they do before your flight takes off. I don't see how they are that much different since the goal is to keep yourself safe just in case it does happen.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zbh90",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Yeah several people referenced this and I may edit the post to reflect this. I touched on the flight safety instructions in the post talking about how people used to flying just put earbuds in during them. In much the same way that kids by middleschool joke and laugh at firedrills. Still fires are far more common than shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8z86dw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8z8omz",
                    "author": "Sarcasm-n-Caffeine",
                    "body": "There were over a hundred shootings in '22...can you link me to a hundred plane crashes in the last year?",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8za3ot",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "According to The Washington Post, there were 46 shootings at K-12 schools in 2022,\n\nhttps://truthout.org/articles/2022-was-worst-year-for-school-shootings-by-nearly-every-meaningful-measure/\n\nDo you have a link for your number. I don't quite know if there were 46 plane crashes in 2022 but the numbers don't matter when the likelihood is exceedingly low. A statistically insignificant percentage of children die in school shootings. If it made the news every time a teacher assaulted a student we'd be homeschooling all kids by now.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8z8omz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zaq9q",
                    "author": "NotGnnaLie",
                    "body": "The chances of dying in one are not low enough.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zft68",
                    "author": "jacobsonjohn287",
                    "body": "\"Manufacturing Consent\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j902t22",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Manufacturing Fear",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8zft68"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zgbu9",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "This can be easily solved. Have a few special ops teams rotate around the schools and stay hidden. School shooters will think twice. The other thing we need to do is have police snipers at large events. If someone pulls a gun and starts shooting, there will already be someone in a position to engage.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9034kl",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I mean, I oppose the amount of troops just eating canned beans in the desert to prop up our empire. I've always said the natl guard and reserves could be doing infrastructure work. It's not a bad idea to have trained military guy overseeing the resource officer and having no contact with the students. Just appears to be an administrative worker",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8zgbu9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zsa4g",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "Inevitably, mass shootings are difficult to defend against because they go after targets of opportunity, secure the schools, you'll get them at malls, or grocery stores, or anywhere else that isn't prepared to defend against such an attack. \n\nWhile training kids how to properly evacuate isn't exactly a bad idea, i fear that it may actually cause more shootings, given it normalizes them in a way. Perhaps the best way to do it would be to just have a generalized intruder drill that's a bit less specific.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zyoil",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I've always said it's the media attention drawn to the school shootings. It's very common to see \"one shot in school shooting\" in a crappy neighborhood and write it off as a city or poverty problem. School shootings are terrorism aimed at the middle and upper classes. The manifestos, drawings, plans and trials have made this a desireable path for a stark minority of the most deranged. I hit at the media for promoting fear and it's a non-partisan aspect of corporate media. \n\n-----------\n\nGeneralized intruder drills don't make the best sense. Shooters can be students and also have had the drills. Intruders probably get in to schools sometimes. Nothing is very secure. As high schoolers we intruded into the middle school just to mess around. I assume some are apprehended for trespassing but most are probably cut loose if apprehended unless they commit an offense at the school. I had a friend expelled from highschool for criminal trespass. It was his third expulsion appeal and he went to school while suspended. Crime happens at schools. All manner of it. Students and staff are the likeliest perps.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j8zsa4g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zx2uk",
                    "author": "Rocky_Bukkake",
                    "body": "i always find it strange when things are reduced to their death toll as a static number. an airplane is an immensely useful tool and a brilliant invention; it can bring one to any other place in the world, enable ease of travel, and is otherwise a positive sign of progress for society. \n\na school shooting is purely an act of cruel terrorism. there is nothing positive gained from a school shooting: it is not an invention, it is not a tool, and lives are senselessly destroyed, as a **hard rule**. \n\ni see this argument as equally as fallacious as antivax stances. the antivax crowd likes to say that natural immunity is as effective as a vaccine, without taking into account long-term side effects, non-vaxxed people dying at a much higher rate, or generally ignoring the vast breadth of experiences or levels of living between \"dead\" and \"survived\".",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j8zxkjf",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Homie. You're comparing an airplane to a school shooting.  Makes no sense. Absurd analogy. Compare an airplane to a school. Hell go at me and compare an airplane to a gun. They're both tools of war.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j8zx2uk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j901u92",
                    "author": "brimstoneph",
                    "body": "I road in an 8 passenger plane a few times last year and i can confidently say i am scared of plane crashes",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j902q7t",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I believe it. prop planes feel different and I've never been in a tiny one.",
                    "date": "2023-02-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j901u92"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j90hv9u",
                    "author": "CoriolisInSoup",
                    "body": "We are worried about plane crashes.  It's the main and legal purpose of cabin crew, you have seat belts, life jackets, oxygen masks and a briefing on each flight on how to use them, and the crew train regularly on emergency evacuations.  \nLow volume of deaths is not a reason to not be concerned about it, particularly if the deaths are that tragic and socially damaging.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j90z4aw",
                    "author": "Calm-Literature5066",
                    "body": "But then flights often have crash preparedness checks.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92i8f5",
                    "author": "Kindly-Name-1099",
                    "body": "The Columbine Shooting is a good example - \n\nMany students died and injured, many hid and still died. The better hidden the better chance at survival though.\n\nOne kid was mentally disabled due to a stroke and couldn't figure out what was happening, he sat in his chair and was shot.\n\nI don't know where you live, but I grew up Military and have always heard/practiced fire safety, bomb safety, Shooting, etc. drills. \n\nThe likehood of getting bombed in school? Low. But it was practiced.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "114a85i",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I hear references to \"run hide fight\" on school IDs and of these drills and they seem so unnecessary. Good advice for kids though. We had very minor drills when we went to high school 15yrs ago.\n\nOn a plane there's an entire show and dance about a one in several millionth chance. The same chance as school shootings. Put your earphones in like you do when they give the safety precautions on a flight.\n\nWhen I went to school we as many bomb threats as formal code red drills. Bomb being a code yellow was like a schoolwide firedrill which allowed kids to just leave for the rest of the day.  We knew some asshole just gave us a free day.\n\nThis is only a statement about school shootings, not gun violence in general.\n\nEdit:\n\nAccording to research compiled by the independent K-12 School Shooting Database research group, there have been 189 shootings at schools around the US since Sandy Hook that have resulted in at least one fatality.\n\nThe shootings counted include everything from suicides and domestic violence.\n\nSeventeen were \"active shooter situations\" - defined as \"when the shooter killed and/or wounded victims, either targeted or random, within the school campus during a continuous episode of violence\".\n\nWhile those events count for a small portion of total shooting incidents, they account for more than a third of all casualties.\n\n\n\n In total, 279 have died from being shot on a school property during, before or after school hours, including weekends\n\nhttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63911172\n\n(as of 2022)\n\nStill school seems like the safer environment than the walk or ride home. Strictly speaking of safety. Besides the IDs the drills themselves can be dramatic. That could shock a generation of kids. Teach em run hide fight at gym and recess and leave the rest alone.\n\n\nEdit: I'm not sure about the psychology of the wave of school shootings and the politicization as well as polarization in the gun debate. On the issue I go more libertarian than on economic issues, and other social issues. \n\n----------------\n\n\nI think I msy be universalizing my perspective as better but my school was in a tougher neighborhood than the majority of kids who attended it lived so it was known that the inside of the school was safer but also not completely safe. The narrative that school shootings are common occurrances is false. It's a statistical lie and promoted by an ambulance chasing newsvan. They are more common but they are not common. Still rare. We have more extreme weather events but people don't go wild fighting over the weather (except hurricane resoonse). \n\n--------------\n\nSo here goes a central point. Senseless violence shocks people in a particular way that is natural. I kinda like both the FDR quote about fear and W saying \"if you change your lifestyle the terrorists win.\" Probably the smartest thing he ever said. Senseless violence will shock kids worse. They have to be taught the scope of the problem.\n\n--------\n\nAlso the reason it can't be stopped is because of the rarity it's impossible to pinpoint genuine threats from cries for help or know what's going on in someones head.  Teaching kids hypervigilance could have negative effects",
                    "date": "2023-02-16",
                    "score": 56,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: School shooting drills create a culture of fear. The chances of dying in one are exceedingly low. As low as plane crashes. As a society we are not afraid of plane crashes",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/114a85i/cmv_school_shooting_drills_create_a_culture_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9e47et",
                    "author": "crocodiddly",
                    "body": "Fire drills are necessary so that students have a gameplan of what to do in the insanely traumatic and frightful occurance that would be a school shooting. Firearms are unfortunately easily accessible in the country, and it would be extremely unsafe to just let kids \"go with their gut\" when it comes to a clearly dangerous life or death matter.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "114a85i"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "115dl7h",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j9133zp",
                "author": "stan-k",
                "body": "Both the quality of public transport and car travel depends on the infrastructure dedicated to it. Cars are useless without roads and trains without tracks.\n\nSo if public transport can compete depends on the investment decisions made over the last few decades. In London this means that the car is typically the less convenient option, because there they never completed the demolishing of neighbourhoods to make space for more roads (as opposed to most US cities). Look up the \"London South Circular\" road to see what I mean. On top of that, where public transport can put you close enough for a 5 minute walk, parking in London is many things but not convenient.\n\nIn the end, public transport can move far more people in the same space and for the same cost than cars can. Often people forget to include road maintenance on the car cost side. If you include it, public transport is a lot cheaper per passenger per mile. Cost must factor in, else a private helicopter wins from the car on convenience every time.\n\nEdit to add: typing this while sitting comfortably in a train...",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 18,
                "parent_id": "115dl7h"
            },
            {
                "id": "j919h2u",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "\u0394 cities can invest more into public transport, and then it will be much better than it is currently.",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": "j9133zp"
            },
            {
                "id": "j919k5k",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/stan-k ([12\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/stan-k)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j919h2u"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j912f2u",
                    "author": "jt4",
                    "body": "I agree with the convenience aspect (for most cities). Reliability is highly dependent on the car. A shitty car won't allow you to travel very far without experiencing some issue.\n\n>I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car\n\nYou've essentially argued against your own view here. Public transit tends to work better in larger cities.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 37,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j93j14b",
                    "author": "pickleparty16",
                    "body": "Public transport works when cities design for it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j912f2u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j912ow0",
                    "author": "shellofbiomatter",
                    "body": "How about all the navigating and keeping up with the road regulations and traffic, that's rather stressful. And ofcourse the financial side.\n\nIsn't it easier to just offload all that to someone else.\nLike bus driver or taxi.\n\nUsually i just sit down at the bus and completely shut off outside world(reading a book, watching a movie, YT videos) cant do any of that while driving myself. No regard or worry about traffic or regulations. It's like autopilot.\n\nAnd the rare instance where personal car would be more convenient or efficient i just use taxi. In long run that's cheaper than a car.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j916t50",
                    "author": "IFuckFlayn",
                    "body": "\n>How about all the navigating and keeping up with the road regulations and traffic, that's rather stressful\n\nThat's entirely personal.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j912ow0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j912u5t",
                    "author": "tthrivi",
                    "body": "Have you ever travelled to Japan? The trains are amazing. You can get anywhere in the country with public transport it\u2019s on time, fast, clean. \n\nAlso should consider biking as well, with the growing popularity of e-bikes, its making bike commuting that much more possible for lots of people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91bx9u",
                    "author": "rmutt-1917",
                    "body": "You can get around and between major cities like Tokyo with no problem. Unfortunately when you leave those areas, the public transportation gets worse and worse and you're better off driving a lot of the time. Tourist areas may retain decent transportation services , but for day to day life you sacrifice way too much if you rely on public transportation.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j912u5t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9131pg",
                    "author": "Giblette101",
                    "body": "Obviously, cars have upsides. In ideal circumstances, they are likely to be faster (depending on distances), more convient and more flexible. However, these ideal circumstances become harder and harder to create as the environment densifies. Traffic and needing to park can easily make a car less convenient in urban environments. \n\nThat's especially true when the number of drivers increase beyond a certain point. It is not sustainable to have large urban centers revolving around car usage, making pretty much everything about working and living there  much worst. It's also a significant financial burden to build and maintain the less efficient roadways as opposed to public transit. \n\nIn addition to that, cars are expensive to own and maintain, while being dangerous for the operator and everyone they drive around.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j913x6r",
                    "author": "Snoo_11003",
                    "body": "Right now? Sure. But take into account that this is only possible because literally every aspect of infrastructure, worldwide, is designed in service of cars. The amount of space and resources allocated to cars would, if spent instead on improving public transport, make travelling much faster, more efficient, and relaxing than a journey by car could ever be. The relative convenience of cars really just means that public transport is not even close to living up to its potential.\n\nShort distance: Walkable neighbourhoods and dedicated bike paths make cars obsolete.\n\nMedium distance: Trams and metros beat anything in an urban environment. Removing car lanes and replacing them with dedicated bus lanes makes buses efficient as hell too. Bus routes are crazy fast when they don't have to wait in traffic.\nRural medium distance is the only scenario where cars arguably have the most potential compared to other transport. But even then regional trains and improved bus networks can give cars a run for their money.\n\nLong distance: Trains. Trains beat everything always.\n\nIn short, sure, when you live in a society with infrastructure centered completely around cars, cars are more convenient than fully neglected modes of transportation! Shocker! But transportation could be so much better, if only we shifted our focus away from cars.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j915af8",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t really see how increased investment in public transport would resolve some of the issues I have highlighted, since they are inherent to the weigh it works.\nCity to city journeys perhaps are faster on trains, but that relies on their not being any obstructions on the line which can delay the journey as there is no alternative way.\nAlso, timetables for trains and buses are completely at someone else\u2019s win, you can\u2019t leave when you want to you have to wait for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "j913x6r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j914z6f",
                    "author": "AleristheSeeker",
                    "body": ">Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\n\n...unless you work in a densely populated area and need to be in traffic for an extended amount of time every day. \n\nYou are also, at least much more than most public transport, affected by road blocks, construction and other hinderances that will slow you down.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j915r9h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I disagree with being hindered Moor, all those issues apply to buses and at least when you\u2019re in a car, you can choose to go a different way but if there\u2019s a problem on the train line you\u2019re travelling on, or there\u2019s another train ahead that was delayed for some reason, you could find yourself being delayed \u201csignificantly.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": -11,
                    "parent_id": "j914z6f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9162ej",
                    "author": "Havenkeld",
                    "body": "When everyone has cars we have pollution and traffic and accidents. They make biking and walking more risky and slower. They ruin the general atmosphere of cities. Not to mention the climate change problem that basically makes it unfeasible as a worldwide standard mode of land transport. It's basically mostly for rich countries and now everyone is effectively paying for their extreme excesses.\n\nEveryone else suffers for car based infrastructure, but even car drivers end up stressing about traffic and of course driving requires more attention from each individual driver whereas people can relax and read or listen to music or watch videos on a phone or whatever on transit. That stress affects their day to day including how they treat others.\n\nCars may be appropriate for individuals with specific limitations but they don't compete with good transport systems from a holistic view. Cars look more convenient only in the absence of alternatives, abstracted from the consequences of other people in cars. But making them the default is one of the worst civic design decisions in history. Granting it wasn't as simple as a single decision, of course.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9167cr",
                    "author": "Jebofkerbin",
                    "body": "This is pretty much bang on when looking at an individual's decisions, but it stops being true when you take this belief and start applying it how you want your local transportation system to be built. A city built for public transportation, pedestrians, and cyclists is going to be far more convenient and reliable to move in and around than one built for cars.\n\nWhole books have been written on this topic (look up *strong towns* if you are interested) but one of the main issues is that cars are horribly space inefficient when compared to every other form of travel, both due to the fact most cars only have 1-2 people in them and unlike public transport every location of interest needs parking in a car dependant city. Trains don't get in jams and don't require parking lots 2-3 sized larger than the location they are serving.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j916s3s",
                    "author": "coanbu",
                    "body": "Cars are only more convenient because we expend massive resources, and make places much worse, to maintain the cars convenience. \n\nAs one example cars take up a lot of space, they are only convenient because we require parking everywhere (and under price it).",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9170zq",
                    "author": "Stiralbios",
                    "body": "It depend where you live and where you want to go.\n\nI live in a kinda big town in europe with decent public transport and decent cycling roads.\n\nAs long as I stay in the town, depending or where I want to go either the bike or the public transport is the best choice. Car is not even a good choice cause the town (like most european town) made the choice to make it harder to use a car inside it.\n\nIf I want to go to another big town public transport is often the best choice too but if the other town is close then car can be the best too.\n\nHowever if I want to go in a small town or country side then a car is the best choice by far. Public transport, when it exist, is very inconvenient and expensive in theses cases.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j917qdq",
                    "author": "WhenWillIBelong",
                    "body": "It's true that the main inconvenience of public transport is getting to and from stops and stations. Though I am looking forward to the uptick of e-scooter use. It used to take me 10-15 minutes walk to get to a stop. With an e-scooter that trip is reduced to minutes.\n\nThere are caveats with public transport, it's good for main routes and becomes less useful for the endpoints. But I think the inconvenience of cars is understated. While yes, you can theoretically drive anywhere you want to go, there's a lot you need to look out for.\n\n* Obvious first is parking. Getting parking can be a pain. Last time I went out to dinner I had to wait an hour for my friends who drove to find a parking spot. This is a common occurrence. Meanwhile the non-drivers just turn up on time.\n* Storage. Having a car is great. So long as you have somewhere to keep it. It costs a lot extra to have a parking spot in a crowded urban area. This is really only feasible when density is low. As soon as space become valuable housing a car is inconvenient.\n* Cars break. My colleague had to take a day off work last week to get their car fixed. Also getting to work extremely late the day before. Meanwhile when the train was delayed due to a car crash on the tracks a replacement bus took passengers to their destination. \n* Battery. I had a car I kept so I could have one when I need one. Unfortunately whenever I needed one the battery was flat. Not too convenient when you can't use it.\n* You are always tied to your car. I can go wherever I want and not worry about where I end up. Just get to a transit stop and I can get home. When I drive I have to worry about where I parked and make sure I get back there.\n\nAnd it's true. A public transport system needs to be modern and serviced. I wonder what a Public transit system would be like if it was invested into as much as our car system was. It's not an entirely fair comparison when one has been selected to be the  primary option. You are also going to see a bigger return on the investment you put more money into. Do you think if cars and mass transit were given equal funding cars would still be more convenient?",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91nkmm",
                    "author": "flukefluk",
                    "body": "the way i see it is this.\n\ncars, every where they can work, work much better than public transport for medium distances.\n\nthis is because the time cost of getting to a station, or waiting in the station for the public transport, is substantial. \n\nif you are in a place where you can park next to both departure and destination, and can drive the way on a reasonably available (not congested) road, you will save half or more of you travel time, which will add up to be a LOT since you commute daily. \n\npublic transport wins where cars become impossible. the space required to support the car moving or the car parking is a limiting factor and city centers become congested to the point that the bus or train, on a dedicated lane, will outpace the car stuck parked in traffic. \n\nor alternatively, cars lose in long distances where trains can accelerate to twice the speed of the car.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j917qdq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91801t",
                    "author": "JohnCamus",
                    "body": "1: it can compete and win.\n2: cars are more inconvenient to everybody else, even if they are convenient to the driver.\n\n 1a: it is not convenient if you want to work or sleep while arriving somewhere. I need to drive a lot for my job. The train is way more convenient than the car hands down. A 2 hour ride becomes 2 hours of work on my laptop or a 2 hour nap. In a car, I need to drive myself. Public transport outsources the driving part for me.\n\n1b: it is more convenient if you suck at driving. I do. So I let people who know what they do ride the bus.\n\n2: cars as a central mode of transportation are really inconvenient to everybody else. \nA: parking: a lot of space is reserved for parking. This is inconvenient for everybody else, who wants to do something else with this space\n\nB: traffic lights and complicated crossroads: for everybody else, moving through a city is made more inconvenient by cars than by public transport. People have to navigate through the dangerous road infrastructure which is created for cars. Walking through a place that mostly relies on bus, bike and train is way more convenient. There are less busy crossroads, shops nearby and places are not spread as far apart.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9198q9",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "In my car I feel a sense of safety, privacy, and separation from the general public that I don't get on public transportation. If there were maybe short range travel pods that could hook up/load on to busses/trains then maybe it would be more viable. Think of an enclosed Segway that can board larger public transport vehicles. Also, these would have to be well policed and run often. Then we could make it work. The real home run would  be mandating that all jobs that can be done from home must be done from home. Photons are much easier to move than people. The only problem with that is that bosses won't get their little ego/power trip fix of having subordinates around them. Just think, the planet is dying so some CEO can feel \"special\"...that's just sad.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91b28g",
                    "author": "nottheazaelas",
                    "body": "Cars are certainly more convenient for one person, but they don\u2019t scale as well as public transport. If everyone relies on cars in densely populated areas you start seeing traffic, have to account for parking, see more accidents, etc. Public transport is the most convenient for the most people, which matters more when you\u2019re planning cities.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91c08p",
                    "author": "Izawwlgood",
                    "body": "My dad has spent something like 2 yrs of his life sitting behind the wheel of a car driving too and from work. That's two YEARS of his life spent sitting alone in a car. He uses that time to work - business calls and books on tape, sure. But he can't read books. He can't hang with his family or friends.\n\nI did a ton of road trips when I was in college. Now I hate the idea of sitting behind a wheel. I love public transit because it's free time, and cheap. A commute vow public transit is vastly preferable to one by driving. Cheaper, no wear and tear on my car, and I can spend the time reading or sleeping.\n\nConvenience and reliability entirely depends on what you're doing. I wouldn't want to lug a week's worth of groceries on the train. But I only shop for groceries once a week.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91cevl",
                    "author": "hermionator",
                    "body": "I don't have a car but frequently go on weekend trips by rail (2h+ journey time). You know what I love about rail travel? I don't have to be in the driver seat for hours on end, focusing on the road and other cars, even when I'm travelling solo. Instead I can just sit in a chair with a nice view and stare out of the window, read a book, do some work, walk around the train, listen to music or play card games with friends and family. Except for a few minutes' waiting at the station, time I spend while travelling by train is time I get to enjoy. There's no waiting in traffic, and if for whatever reason I get delayed significantly I get reimbursed. If the train breaks down in the middle of the tracks I don't have to send it to the garage and fight with insurance, because it's the train operator's responsibility to get me to my destination.\n\nOf course this only works if you have good rail coverage and functioning consumer protection laws. But the time aspect is massive and I'd be very hesitant to move to a country where I would have to drive to get anywhere. \n\nI grew up in a major metropolitan area with horrendous traffic. A lot of people waste their days stuck in their car trying to get from A to B whereas public transport, if used correctly, is both cheaper and faster in my experience.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j93x587",
                    "author": "katieb2342",
                    "body": "This has always been my thought process. If a commute is 30 minutes by car, or an hour by train, that's either 30 minutes of driving and paying attention to the road while trying not to kill people or 60 minutes of answering emails and playing video games. My time is my time, and I'd take that over technically less time travelling any day.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j91cevl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91cmjz",
                    "author": "Calm-Literature5066",
                    "body": "This is correct overall. Though public transpotrt is more practical in bigger cities, and for short journeys. But accidents and roadworks can affect car travel.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j91fpup",
                    "author": "canadatrasher",
                    "body": "All you have to do is try to drive a car across NYC midtown during weekday rush hour to immediately understand advantages of public transit.\n\nThere is no \"flexibility\" when you are stuck in traffic and cannot get parking.\n\nIt's SIGNIFICANTLY more flexible to take a subway wherever you need without traffic and without worries about parking.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jtj9m4r",
                    "author": "Ok_Sir_7147",
                    "body": "But you understand not everyone lives in a big city right?\n\nI love in Germany and outside of big cities cars are necessary, it really gives you unlimited freedom.\n\nAlso where I live there's basically any traffic at all because, again, I don't live in a shitty big city.",
                    "date": "2023-07-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j91fpup"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92ytfx",
                    "author": "RedLightGreenArrow1",
                    "body": "The issue isn't one car, its that if you cram a roadway full of them, now you ripped out any semblance of efficiency. This is where public transport comes in.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j93y339",
                    "author": "HappyFeeeeeeeeeeeeet",
                    "body": "I disagree a car is not as reliable as public transport, public transport is always constantly waiting to pick people up whether or not their is people waiting at that stop and if their transport breaks down they can get another one on the scene like that, meanwhile most people (including myself) cant afford to have more than one car and also it takes longer for us to get our car repaired. They are also a great place to meet new friends and new people and are less expensive than driving nowadays.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96ipjm",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "Actually, public transport can compete. It can actually be a much better system. We have designed our society around the private car because we like them. Then we built our suburbs in a manner that assumed everyone had cars. \n\nHere is the solution, IMO: Mandate that all jobs that can be done from home MUST be telecommuted. During covid I had a mandatory job. It was really nice driving to work when 50% of the people were staying home. \n\nGetting people to work from home will lower costs on roads, on insurance, on housing, stress, on fuel costs, and pollution. \n\nIt's a STROKE OF A PEN HOME RUN.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j985jrj",
                    "author": "jrtts",
                    "body": "I used to think cars are convenient, but that's only because everything needed to operate a car is already provided. Insurance has been paid, gas is in the tank, car is in very good running condition, roads are straight-forward, parking lots are aplenty, commute is a surefire routine. \n\nThen I stopped needing the car because I don't need to rush anywhere or commute too far, so I started taking the less-convenient bicycle/bus/train. As time goes, my car gets neglected while my bicycle gets all the TLC a regular car gets (oil/lube top-offs, wheel balancing, etc). Now getting the car to operational standards is as difficult as 'getting the old bike out of the shed'.\n\nSure, it's a slower method of commute (especially in a city that prioritizes cars over other forms of commute), but time is *not* of the essence for me. Soon I realized that a bicycle is easier to get going than a car as I don't need a door to get into or a key to turn/ignite the engine, and it does not need a parking spot to maneuver/back into/out of. Sure, I have to use a bike lock, but that has become as no-brainer as maneuvering into or out of parking spots so maybe this is an even score. \n\nFor bus/train, yes there are some waiting involved, but it can be timed by looking at the timetable (maybe a minor inconvenience, but to me it's similar to looking up how long a new commute takes by car). The convenient part is I don't have to deal with traffic or road concentration as someone else is doing it for me. This frees me up to do something semi-productive during the commute, a little more than merely listening to audiobooks in a car. The money I saved by not paying for gas and insurance can be used to purchase other conveniences.\n\nI doubt car commutes are highly reliable. Traffic is highly variable, and accidents happen more frequently (especially in bad weather). Most metro trains aren't affected by weather or traffic, and freak accidents or holdups for rail services are more unlikely. Perhaps if one is driving to a non-popular (rural) area, the car is more convenient, but going into a populous area (like downtown) makes cars less convenient as drivers have to mind pedestrians and look for parking.\n\nSpeaking of pedestrians, perhaps the greatest convenience of a car is at the expense of other road users. Remember that non-car road users are road users, too, and making a road smooth and more exclusive to cars makes it inconvenient (dangerous!) to other road users regardless of if they are using a car or not. As a result, more road users use the car, which adds more traffic congestion, and ultimately becomes inconvenient for everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99bzlh",
                    "author": "anewleaf1234",
                    "body": "Finding parking in the city I live in sucks. \n\nYou can spend 30 mins looking for a free spot all while hoping you didn't miss a  sign and thus end up with a tow or you can spend a lot of money on paid parking. \n\nSpending 250 bucks because you failed to see a sign sucks.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115dl7h",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "As someone who can\u2019t drive due to a medical issue and who lives in a country that has very decent public transport, and who uses that very frequently to get around I  think that Cars are still the most convenient way for the majority of people to travel.\nThey are just so much more flexible, oftentimes, people will talk about the speeds of various trains, but this is usually Station to Station and doesn\u2019t take into account the time it takes to get to the station in the first place, and then the time it takes to get from the station to your final destination so using the train can take much longer., Plus, the spoke and hub design of most public transport systems, while efficient, means that it takes longer to get to towns and cities which are close by because you have to travel 1st to a central hub and then onto your final destination.\nAlso, public transport has to follow certain designated routes, the train can\u2019t follow a different path if there is an obstruction on the line but has to wait until it\u2019s cleared and  any small delay can cascade in to much larger delays further on especially if multiple forms of public transport are involved.\nAnd finally, the average person doesn\u2019t have a say on how many trains or buses serve a particular route, this is all at the discretion of the local council or government and services can be withdrawn or scaled back without any recourse.\nThat being said, I think probably London Underground is comparable to a car but no other public transport systems in the UK can even come close.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: public transport can\u2019t compete with the convenience and reliability of cars",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115dl7h/cmv_public_transport_cant_compete_with_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i8oma",
                    "author": "yuendeming1994",
                    "body": "It depend on the city you live. Like in Hong Kong, you will realize it difficult to find a parking place. Besides, traffic congestion usually a bigger problem than public transport. Basically public transport are sometime more convenient and reliable.\n\nBut since you mentioned UK, i cant change your mind",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115dl7h"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "115ljp1",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j92x09p",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": ">Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved. And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYou are conflating \"justice\" and \"vengeance.\"   \n\n\nThe problem with calling it a justice system now is honestly that it isn't about justice, but about retribution and vengeance and cruelty.   \n\n\nJustice is defined colloquially as \"the quality of being just; fairness; the principle of moral rightness; decency.\" It is defined legally as \"the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly, properly, and reasonably by the law and arbiters of the law, that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken - both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions.\" (From Cornell Law School).   \n\n\nSo, how does restorative justice do that? Well, the accused and accuser are both treated fairly under the law. Second, the accused, if properly convicted, loses their liberty and rights for a time. Third, those who are in custody of the state are treated impartially, fairly, and reasonably. Fourth, an actual remedial action is taken: the state takes it upon itself to remediate the circumstances that allowed for the accuser to proceed down the path they were on and to help to prevent that from happening again.   \n\n\nOur current system, in the way we treat the accused from the moment they enter the system fails to provide a remedial action. Punishment is not remediation. Ensuring that people who are presumed innocent are kept locked up for months or years awaiting trial simply because they can't afford bail is not fair and equitable. Allowing prisoners to become the victims of violence, sexual assault, rape, and additional crimes is not a morally right consequence merited by their actions.",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "115ljp1"
            },
            {
                "id": "j92z8ej",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "\"You are conflating \"justice\" and \"vengeance.\"\"\n\nNo I am not. You are just reading that into it because this is a common area where our culture lacks nuance.\n\nI am describing RETRIBUTION. Which is not the same thing as vegence.\n\nRetribution is where if you kill someone,  you get killed. Vengeance is when if you kill someone and then your entire family is slaughtered.\n\nRetribution is morally fine because it fits the punishment.\n\n\" but about retribution and vengeance and cruelty.\"\n\nTo a retrubitonist like me, the punishment should only be cruel if the crime was cruel.\n\n\" It is defined legally as \"the ethical, philosophical idea that people are to be treated impartially, fairly,\"\n\nSo I'd like to know, how is treating our friend the store robber with hugs and giving him a state backed education at all 'fair' to the person who he shot in the face? And the children who now never get to see their father again because of our robber?\n\n\" Second, the accused, if properly convicted, loses their liberty and rights for a time. \"\n\nAgain, our clerk has lost their life. They are now dead FOREVER. How is that fair?\n\n\"that laws are to ensure that no harm befalls another, and that, where harm is alleged, a remedial action is taken - both the accuser and the accused receive a morally right consequence merited by their actions.\"\n\n\u2206\n\nAlright, I have to give a delta for this I guess. Because if - AND THIS IS A BIG SODDING IF - justice is 'making sure no harm happens again' then yes, this touchy feely restorative crap really is just then.\n\nIt is a shame though that this Cornell Law School has such a shitty and disgusting view of justice, but that's another issue.\n\n\"Allowing prisoners to become the victims of violence, sexual assault, rape, and additional crimes is not a morally right consequence merited by their actions.\"\n\nIf the prisoners are guilty than sure it is, fuck those people.",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": "j92x09p"
            },
            {
                "id": "j92zcdt",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/kingpatzer ([67\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/kingpatzer)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j92z8ej"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92cgez",
                    "author": "ruff98ss",
                    "body": ">So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. \n\nNo, it doesn't. I don't even know how you can defend this. You have faculties of reason. You know from personal experience that people follow incentives. You probably have things you might like to do but don't because you don't want to be punished. Don't listen to the so-called \"expert\" class with their contrived studies. Haven't the past few years taught us, if nothing else, that the \"experts\" know basically nothing? Only someone with 2 Harvard degrees could be \"smart\" enough to forget what a woman is, or the basic fact that people follow incentives. Ignore their \"studies.\"\n\nOnce we get away from the flawed premise, we can get back to calling it the \"justice\" system because it will be about justice, not about \"restoration.\"\n\n>Say you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. \n\nI agree that putting said person in a cage for 10 years and treating him badly and then releasing him is absolutely insane. No wonder recidivism is so high. But \"teach him to code and why robbing people is mean, and then set him free\" isn't the only alternative.\n\nInstead of that, why not keep him in prison for life, or execute him? What exactly is the point of giving robbers and home invaders a \"second chance\" to hurt people? What \"study\" shows that this would lead to more crime than ever giving him a second chance? Obviously by deductive reasoning it *can't* lead to more crime, because then 100% of robbers would never victimize anyone in the general public ever again, which no other method attains.\n\n>Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nExactly, which is why this proposal is absurd. I suppose the \"studies\" say that it's in no way ever possible that we might see an uptick in violent crime if it's \"punished\" with a free college education, housing, and job training. The very assertion would be 10 forms of \"ist\" and 3 forms of \"phobe,\" and therefore facially invalid to consider. Right.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd6gikg",
                    "author": "StarChild413",
                    "body": "> I suppose the \"studies\" say that it's in no way ever possible that we might see an uptick in violent crime if it's \"punished\" with a free college education, housing, and job training.\n\nPeople trying to exploit the system would just do the minimum that would get them that \"punishment\" unless they were already inclined to violent crime and then you could just use that to make free college, housing and job training or whatever for everybody more acceptable to Republicans by framing it as tough on crime",
                    "date": "2023-03-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j92cgez"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92cmo7",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">Fine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they deserve. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you deserve to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nThat's not justice, that's just retribution.\n\nIf someone is in prisoned, their rights are taken, their freedoms are taken. That's a part of the justice system.\n\nBut remember victims don't prosecute crimes. The state, the collective does. Yes, he murdered a person, but the state is going after him. \n\nYour freedoms are curtailed, you're held against your will and lose your rights as punishment for what you did -- but punishment is not the sole goal of the justice system, or justice in general. Rehabilitation is also part of that goal, and it helps everyone. \n\nIf someone robbed you, what would make you happier in the long run? If someone cut off the thief's hand in retribution and the thief was more embittered, worse off, angrier, or if the thief went to prison and learned a trade and got therapy and came out a better person who contributed to society and helped others?",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92v6ze",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"That's not justice, that's just retribution.\"\n\nRetribution IS justice. That's why we should stop calling our system the 'justice system.'\n\n\"If someone is in prisoned, their rights are taken, their freedoms are taken. That's a part of the justice system.\"\n\nAnd they are treated to what is in effect a vacation. Meanwhile their victim spent their last waking moments in fear and agony. Does that really sound 'just' to you?\n\n\"If someone robbed you, what would make you happier in the long run? If someone cut off the thief's hand in retribution and the thief was more embittered, worse off, angrier, or if the thief went to prison and learned a trade and got therapy and came out a better person who contributed to society and helped others?\"\n\nI'll give you an honest answer because I'm way more familiar with this than most.\n\nMy dad was murdered when I was six. Since bringing him back is impossible, the situation which would make me 'happiest' is this: I'd want the man beaten viciously and left for dead in a car wreck just like he did to my dad.\n\nYou know what happened? He got 3 years in a Canadian prison.\n\n\"learned a trade and got therapy and came out a better person who contributed to society and helped others?\"\n\nIf I found out that the man who murdered my father was currently living a happy life, I would be *even more angry and sickened.*",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "j92cmo7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92cyj9",
                    "author": "NegativeOptimism",
                    "body": ">ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically their victim.\n\nRestorative justice refers to bringing victims of crime into the justice process so that the harm caused to them is properly discussed and the offender's punishment is designed to specifically repair that harm. The idea being that if someone destroys your property and gets thrown in jail, it doesn't replace the property or address any consequences of losing that property.\n\nIt's not about pandering to criminals and ignoring victims, it's the opposite.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92ur3x",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Restorative justice refers to bringing victims of crime into the justice process so that the harm caused to them is properly discussed and the offender's punishment is designed to specifically repair that harm.'\n\nSo if the child of a murdered man were to say \"I'd like the man who stabbed my father to death to be stabbed to death himself' Would a restorative justice advocate recommend that sentence?\n\nIf so, than restorative justice isn't so bad.\n\n\"It's not about pandering to criminals and ignoring victims, it's the opposite.\"\n\nIf your answer to my above question is 'No' then I'm sorry to say but you are wrong. Restorative justice types only care about victims when victims agree with them and want to forgive the perps.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j92cyj9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92doe3",
                    "author": "Dramatic-Emphasis-43",
                    "body": "Justice is about the fair application of the law against those who violated it. We have decided that certain crimes deserve certain punishments, and though in practice our justice system hasn\u2019t always performed it\u2019s duty correctly, in abstract, this application applies to anyone no matter their class, wealth, family line, race, religion, etc. \n\nWhat you\u2019re thinking of is closer to revenge, which is to inflict similar harm to one who has wronged you. The two are very similar, but their distinctions make all the difference. \n\nThe reason we don\u2019t enact punishment the way you described, at least in countries like the US, is we have our laws and policies that prohibit \u201ccruel and unusual punishment\u201d. While the death penalty itself remain contentious, how we apply it I think has always been (to a certain extent) done as humanely as possible. Say what you will about the electric chair, the US (unless I\u2019m wrong then wow) has never issued a punishment like to be drawn and quartered, put on the rack, or any other medieval style torture and execution.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92ui00",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "'ur laws and policies that prohibit \u201ccruel and unusual punishment\u201d.\n\nYeah, and that law protects rapists and criminals and child molesters, and war criminals.\n\n\"how we apply it I think has always been (to a certain extent) done as humanely as possible.\"\n\nBut the electric chair doesn't do anything to prevent more crimes. That was one of the major premises of my post.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j92doe3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92dywc",
                    "author": "Ok-Future-5257",
                    "body": "How is data supposed to show if punishment is a good deterrence or not?  Nobody is going to admit to a survey, \"I was about to rape someone, but then I remembered that I didn't want to go to prison.\"\n\nJustice protects the rights of the innocent, punishes the guilty according to the severity of their crime, and compensates victims.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92ubft",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Justice protects the rights of the innocent, punishes the guilty according to the severity of their crime, and compensates victims.\"\n\nAgreed. 100%. But the problem is this does nothing to make society safer.\n\nPlaces like Texas kills scores of people and it does nothing to deter crime. Meanwhile a place like the neatherlands treats criminals with hugs and fuzzy slippers, and we can see that their crime rates are objectively lower.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j92dywc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92hjby",
                    "author": "tidalbeing",
                    "body": "The word justice is also used for social justice and in a religious context for treating the poor, with mercy and for debt forgiveness. To sell a man into slavery for his debts isn't justice. Or we look at the wisdom of Solomon in declaring that the child should be cut in half. It revealed which woman truly cared for the child and so who justly should have custody.\n\nA single crime of someone shooting a convenience store clerk is the result of larger injustice, communities divided by highways, poor care of childcare, class sizes that are too big. Treating these people fairly means solving these  problems. Eye-for-eye punishment does not and it's not just or fair.  Throwing a man in prison deprives his family, making the injustice worse.\n\nThe justice system should strive for justice, not for punishment. And if it does strive for justice, it should still be called a justice system.\n\nMuch of the justice may actually occur in civil court with lawsuits. That's where systems are altered.\n\nExecuting  Ted Bundy did not bring about justice for Caryn Campbell, her family, or the community where she was murdered. It changed nothing and made things worse by inspiring other mass murderers such as Israel Keyes who killed Samantha Koenig. So if we want justice, a way to end or reduce such deaths we need to look at conditions that led up to the murders.\n\nI lived only a few miles from were Caryn Cambbell was abducted. And years later only a few miles from where the same happened to Samantha Koenig. Executing Bundy didn't lead to greater safety for anyone. \n\nYet, these are a tiny fraction of murder, rape, manslaughter, and intentional death. So in seeking justice, we should focus on the bigger prize, a reduction of domestic violence and non-consensual sex.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92txy2",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" store clerk is the result of larger injustice, communities divided by highways, poor care of childcare, class sizes that are too big\"\n\nDo you honestly think that every act of cruelty committed by humans is the result larger injustice? Isn't it possible that someone who has everything going for them, whom society has given money, shelter, love, and support, could just be an uncaring person? Or makes a bad choice?\n\nDo you really have that much of a rosy idea of humans?\n\n\"The justice system should strive for justice, not for punishment\"\n\nThat's like saying you should strive to satisfy hunger without food.\n\n\"Executing Ted Bundy did not bring about justice for Caryn Campbell, her family, or the community where she was murdered. It changed nothing \"\n\nOh, and giving Bundy a hug and treating him as if he was the REAL victim would have, right? Go to the parents of Kimberly Leach and tell them that. Tell them \"Hey, don't worry: We're going to make sure that the man who killed your daughter has three meals a day, in a comfortable and safe and cleanly location. Isn't that great!?\"\n\nHow does rewarding Ted Bundy's bad behavior do anything for the family of Caryn Cambbell? Nothing.\n\nRestorative justice doesn't care about the victims, so we should stop calling it that and get ride of any pretense that it does. And  hence we should stop calling it the 'justice system' because that is a lie.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j92hjby"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92i5kd",
                    "author": "deep_sea2",
                    "body": "I think this an equivocation issue. We will have to play the definition game here. Justice is one of those words that has different interpretations. For the common person, justice is almost synonymous with fairness. You say that yourself:\n\n> Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness.\" \n\nFrom the legal perspective, justice is something else. Justice is simply the correct legal way to do something based on the circumstance of the case. The best legal simplification that I have is:\n\nFacts + Law = Justice\n\nTake this statement for example:\n\n>  If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered\n\nFrom the legal perspective, justice is apply the proper penalty as prescribe per law. If the penalty in the jurisdiction is 5 years in jail, the the just thing to do is give that person five years in jail. If the law requires torture (law does not allow this anymore, but let's pretend), then the just thing would be torture. It would be unjust if the law says five years, and we torture. It would be unjust if the law says torture, but we give them five years.\n\nJustice is simply doing what we say we will do. From the legal perspective, what you are describing sound more like retribution. Why is my definition better than yours? Well, to me it makes sense to use the definition of those that are actually involved in the process. If judges and lawyers say that justice is simply a correct application of the law, it makes sense that we should use that definition because they are one the one applying the law. Similarly, if a doctor defines something anatomically, or a sailor describes something nautical, it makes more sense to adopt their definitions since they are the ones employing the definition more than anybody else.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92sznj",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Does this mean that if Nazi laws say that it is just to throw Jews into the gas chambers, that throwing Jews into the gas chambers is in fact justice?\n\nBecause you make a good point about justice just being a factor of law rather than philosophy, but if that's the case, it seems to me that a consequence could be that genocide is 'justice' so long as it is on the legal books.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j92i5kd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92iakd",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": "The Justice System isn't about Justice for the individual victims.   That's Revenge.\n\nIt's about Justice for *society*.     Society let that robber down when it allowed him to fall so low.   Society owes it to him and all of it's other members collectively to fix that robber if possible.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92stqm",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Society let that robber down when it allowed him to fall so low.\"\n\nOh Christ. Plenty of people grow up with parents and communities who love them and support them, and they still hurt other people. Either because they're unempathetic, or they simply don't care about the consequences of their actions.\n\nWhat then do you do with such a person whom society has never 'failed?'\n\n\"Society owes it to him and all of it's other members collectively to fix that robber if possible\"\n\nDo you have any idea how many people have gone through so much worse than this hypothetical robber and never went on to harm anybody? There are  holocaust survivors who had their entire families wiped out, and then afterward never harmed a soul after. \n\nYou have too much sympathy for these kinds of scum. Sympathy for which other people are far more worthy of.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j92iakd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92ppk0",
                    "author": "Thisisthatguy99",
                    "body": "Ok\u2026 to use your store clerk example\u2026 robber shoots clerk. Clerk is wounded and lives and is permanently injured or dies. Store loses money. How does shooting and injuring or killing the robber benefit the victims. The money is gone, the clerk will never be the same, neither will his family. \n\nPersonally, I feel that part of the robbers rehabilitation should be restitution to those he victimized, for the rest of his life\u2026. Be it in jail or as a productive member of society afterwards. He will never make up for his crime against the clerk\u2026 but a given amount of money over a period of time will help the victim and family with the loss of income, medical bills, etc\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j92sb8g",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" Store loses money. How does shooting and injuring or killing the robber benefit the victims.\"\n\nHow does treating the killer with kid gloves and treating him like he's the real victim benefit the victim or his family?\n\nMaybe the victims family wants the killer dead. This form of 'justice' is denying them that.\n\n\"I feel that part of the robbers rehabilitation should be restitution to those he victimized,\"\n\nAnd what if the victim or their family wants nothing to do with the perp? They find his presence, and his money, repulsive. \n\nIf someone killed my family member and then tried to give me money to make it better I would never accept that.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j92ppk0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j93dtdd",
                    "author": "GenderDimorphism",
                    "body": "The best thing to do would be to reduce the number of criminals in our society, like Norway has going for them. Punishing a rapist is ok, fixing a rapist is better, never having a rapist to begin with is best. How does Norwegian society keep people from becoming violent criminals in the first place?",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j944o3d",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Did... did you even read my post? Serious question.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j93dtdd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j94axxi",
                    "author": "OkArgument8192",
                    "body": "If victims were allowed to pick the punishment (which is where your line of thinking ends) then you might as well start prosecuting each crime with murder and take unfair or cruel punishment out the constitution cause alot of the punishments would go against those",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j94ddgr",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"If victims were allowed to pick the punishment (which is where your line of thinking ends) \"\n\nNever said that. Victims can ask for unjust punishments, certainly.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j94axxi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "115ljp1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "From what I understand the data indicates that capital punishment and harsh punishments don't do much to reduce recidivism and preventing crime (I mean, death obviously prevents recidivism but you get my meaning). So as loathe as I am to admit it we are better off adopting a more ReStOrAtIvE approach to justice because that results in less crime overall. But we should stop calling it the justice system then because turning rapists and killers into respectable members of society doesn't do dick for the victims, specifically *their* victim.\n\nSay you take a robber who shoots a store clerk in the face when he robs the place. You send him to whatever restorative program deals with guys like him and you convince him that actually killing is a very not nice thing to do, how he should ask for help when he's in financial trouble rather than rob a corner store, and it's a success. He's not going to hurt anyone again and he can deal with is emotions in a healthy way, etc.\n\nThat does not do any justice for the store clerk. Or the family who's lives have been shattered by this robber's actions. All you've really done (in the long term) is  reward the robber. You've taken him in, payed for his life on the state's dime, treated him very gently(because restorative justice proponents are also in favor of humane prison conditions). Maybe his life in jail is even better than whatever shit neighborhood he came from. Maybe he even gets an education in jail so when he leaves he can have a better chance to find work, meaning he's in a better position in life than he was before he shot the clerk in the face.\n\nFine, good thing that he's less likely to rob another store. But you've basically in the long term rewarded the guy. Justice, at its heart, is based on fairness. On people getting what they *deserve*. And it is 'fair' if you are hurt in the same way you inflict harm on another. If you shoot someone, you *deserve* to be shot. If you crush someone in a drunk hit and run, you deserve to have your own bones shattered, if you rape someone you deserve to be violated yourself.\n\nIt's not a matter of 'justice' whether the criminal goes on to do it again. Justice means ensuring that the people involved are treated fairly, that they got what they deserved.  And if our robber friend murders a minimum wage store clerk, giving our robber the path to a brighter future is completely unfair to our store clerk and his family.\n\nYes, 'restorative justice' does result in less harm overall, and we should adopt it. But we should stop calling it justice and instead call it something like 'the good public policy system.'\n\nAnd I think it's obvious how this doesn't do dick for the victims of truly heinous individuals, like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy.",
                    "date": "2023-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We should stop calling it the 'justice' system.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/115ljp1/cmv_we_should_stop_calling_it_the_justice_system/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99hwdw",
                    "author": "Salt_Attorney",
                    "body": "There are different concepts of justice that have evolved throughout history, you should read up on it to understand why we don't use \"an eye for an eye\" as our definition of justice anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "115ljp1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9ate3m",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I have. The reasons why suck.\n\nRead Kant if you want to see how this restorative crap is not justice.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j99hwdw"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11681to",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95gbkq",
                "author": "EmptyVisage",
                "body": "Teaching kids about meditation would bring actual benefits similar to the ones you mentioned. Indoctrination is not only unnecessary, but detrimental. Quiet reflection does not require theism.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 231,
                "parent_id": "11681to"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95ghmu",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "!delta good point. In my religion prayer and meditation are very similar, so I wasn't considering an indoctrination perspective.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 10,
                "parent_id": "j95gbkq"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95gj1u",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/EmptyVisage ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/EmptyVisage)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "j95ghmu"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fl5l",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "What kind of prayer? \n\nChristian?\n\nHindu?\n\nMuslim?\n\nSatanic? \n\nWhy do you think your religion has the right to make others feel unwelcome?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fo8g",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I never said it had to be my religion. And I did say non sectarian.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95fl5l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ft3a",
                    "author": "NotSarcasmForSure",
                    "body": "Yeah the problem with that here is that religion is kind of diverse here. On the other hand, we do pledge our allegiance to our flag which I guess is kinda similar... idk if people do that in other countries",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ik0z",
                    "author": "armitageskanks69",
                    "body": "Most don\u2019t. And if they do, usually it started during an authoritarian dictatorship",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j95ft3a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fw3m",
                    "author": "Finklesfudge",
                    "body": "Is what you want, actually just \"A mandatory quiet period to do what you wish before school starts\" ?\n\nYou speak about religion but you didn't speak of people who simply don't pray, so what are you mandating them to do?  More like... just meditate on calmness or meditate quietly on whatevery they wish?\n\nIf what you want is a ability to pray before class, well... that's already a thing.  You can already do that in public schools.  You can do that yourself before class, you can do that yourself or with a group before class, almost all schools allow religious 'groups' to meet up with each other, and other than making it mandatory that they can do it in 'groups'... all those things are already allowed.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 55,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g3ud",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "The atheists can meditate on peace, calmness, etc. Good point about prayer groups. We didn't have this in my school. But if we don't mandate it, the students who did prayer or meditation will have calmer minds and therefore will be able to focus more than other students. If we mandate it, all students will get same benefit.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -20,
                    "parent_id": "j95fw3m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fwss",
                    "author": "codan84",
                    "body": "Schools have no business having any sort of official prayers at all much less mandatory prayer. It is not the place of the government to push or require prayers or any sort of religious or spiritual activity. You are not from the US so you may not be aware that we have a tradition of secular government and it is illegal for the government to establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. You forcing praying onto students at schools would be both. One is free to not practice religion and your mandated prayers would be mandatory religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 30,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g7jm",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "No, the prayer doesn't have to be explicit religious.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -11,
                    "parent_id": "j95fwss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g7wo",
                    "author": "DeliberateDendrite",
                    "body": "Why would you force people to engage in mandatory prayers? What exactly does it add to their education?\n\nAlso, have you considered that some people are not religious, are atheist or agnostic? Prayer isn't going to do anything for them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gbyn",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Sure. There are secular prayers, meditation and chants. It gives people a calmer mind and then they will be able to focus more. A good start to the day. May increase compassion. Less fighting,",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95g7wo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g9a8",
                    "author": "Eerga_tnodI",
                    "body": "Why should prayers be considered something positive and useful to being with? I find them a useless waste of time. Your whole reasoning is based on the assumption that praying has a positive connotation.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gbof",
                    "author": "Sonsangnim",
                    "body": "As a teacher, I have had in one classroom Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, and atheist students. Every one of those children has the right to be respected and feel as if they belong. Any kind of prayer would possibly make one or more of them feel as if they don't belong. That is reason enough to avoid prayer. They are there to learn, not to pray. Keep your prayers to yourself. Don't inflict them on my students.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gdww",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "What about if we make the prayer non sectarian ?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95gbof"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ggss",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "How can mixed prayer (or refusal to pray) be \"mandatory\"? Mandatory time period, but some religions can't/won't mix prayer with others. Mixing Quaker vs. Southern Baptist in the same room, for example.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gqf4",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">...Prayer brings people together, to share in worship...\n\nFalse premise. This is a ridiculous and ahistorical position, sadly. Most Nazis were practicing, confessing Catholics and there was no shortage of prayers in the trains to Aushwitz. So, no prayer does nothing. \n\nPrayers were also invoked by the mothers in Rwanda, as the priests smashed their babies' heads against the church wall.\n\nSo, no, prayer is at best, a false comfort and the argument that it brings people together is not a given.\n\nAdded: church",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 46,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gxpb",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "Just as a point of order - Nazis were not, by any majority, catholic and catholics were persecuted during the Holocaust as well, though not nearly as much as Jewish people.\n\nedited because since the OP of this thread blocked me for disagreeing, I cannot reply to anything - yes, Catholics had blame.  But 1/3 is not even half of the nazis and the nazis didn't like catholicism or protestentism either - they wanted nationalism.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "j95gqf4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gvab",
                    "author": "Guy_with_Numbers",
                    "body": "You're completely ignoring atheists, who don't benefit and/or are actively harmed by your proposition.\n\n> Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n\nIf it is the same prayer, you're forcing someone to express a faith that they don't believe in. That divides people, it doesn't unify them. If it is a prayer only they believe in, then there's no unity created at all.\n\n> Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nForcing someone to express anything (and especially love of God) is wrong, regardless of belief system.\n\n> Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n\nIf the prayer is same regardless of faith, then the exact opposite happens for those of a faith that the prayer doesn't belong to. If the prayer is different for each person, then there's no need for a session in school.\n\n> Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n\nYou can make specific accommodations for that, such as prayer halls. No need for a general prayer session that includes those who don't need such accommodations.\n\n> Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThat's your personal experience. You can't extrapolate that to others, especially those of a different faith or upbringing.\n\n> The prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nYou say that the prayer should be non sectarian. Which prayer applies to everyone, regardless of faith/lack of faith?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cvjq",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "[https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/9249/lokah-samastah-sukhino-bhavantu](https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/9249/lokah-samastah-sukhino-bhavantu)\n\nThis one",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j95gvab"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gxha",
                    "author": "PygmeePony",
                    "body": "Religion has no place in public schools, which is the reason why private schools exist. I agree that there should be time for meditation or mindfulness in all schools but the word prayer has an inherent religious meaning. There's no such thing as an agnostic or atheist prayer. Students who go to public schools should pray in their own free time outside class hours.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hs58",
                    "author": "lifejustsck0120",
                    "body": "NO. There's no need to argument about this, simple logic. Your religion is not everyone's religion and there's people like me who is atheist, who don't believe in a God\n No one forcing me or any kid at school to be praying",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hx1i",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I never said I would be enforcing MY religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j95hs58"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hz3j",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nWhy just God? Wouldn't they equally have a right to pray to Satan/the Devil? Would you be fine with some students coming in and performing ritual satanic prayers, with pentagrams and what not?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95i133",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Yes, if that's what they believe.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j95hz3j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95jbpu",
                    "author": "Pyramused",
                    "body": "\"from now on, it is mandatory for our student to speak with their imaginary friend at least once a day\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95mog1",
                    "author": "Redditor274929",
                    "body": "The problem is this totally ignores the fact not all kids are religious. I'm atheist and growing up, the rare occasion I had to pray i hated it bc I felt awkward and didn't know what to do and I felt silly the entire time",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95rjgg",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "Do it at home.  Mandatory?  Take your authoritarian views and move to a place that shares your ideology.  I\u2019ll help you move.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95rpg9",
                    "author": "RadioSlayer",
                    "body": "Fuck. No.   As a life long atheist the entire idea is infuriating.  And this would only further bullying of people like me in many places.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95v67h",
                    "author": "Crayshack",
                    "body": ">Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n\nWhat about the exclusionary effects on students who are from a religion that does not engage in group prayer, from a religion that prays in a different way incompatable with the majority of the group, or is not a part of a religion.\n\n>Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nIt is a form of expression that makes people who are not a part of the religious group uncomfortable.\n\n>Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n\nThis benefit is only present for students who already have the motivation to engage in prayer.\n\n>Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n\nThere are far better ways to be exposed to other religions than forced participation in religious rituals.  Discussing the history and beliefs of various religions can be a great way to have this exposure.  Simply engaging in prayer conveys less of a tone of learning about other religions and more of a tone of forcing students to join the dominant religion.\n\n>Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n\nMaking space so that religions that mandate prayer can pray is very different from forcing students who are not a part of a religion that mandates prayer to participate.\n\n>Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nOnly for someone who is already practiced and comfortable with prayer.  For other people, forced participation in prayer can be a source of anxiety and can directly result in students feeling less happy and more stressed.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ze9x",
                    "author": "Lazy-Lawfulness3472",
                    "body": "I don't pray! Why should I be forced to sit through YOUR prayer session?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j963tdt",
                    "author": "BidensButtWipes",
                    "body": "This breaks the first amendment. (Freedom of Religion/Speech) Compelling kids to act in prayer (For any religion) is against the amendment. However, if a kid is religious in a public school, and decides they want to pray at any point in school they absolutely can. The students still have responsibilities to fill with assignments and tests, but prayer is absolutely allowed in public schools, just not mandated by any (and shouldn't be mandated) authority. Mandating this would absolutely blow the Amendments out of the water, and any enforcement would be useless.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j966a42",
                    "author": "shouldco",
                    "body": "As a non religious person group prayer is an incredibly isolating experience.\n\nAnd for what it's worth my school did do this essentially with a \"minuet of science\" at the beginning of the day, where a student could do 'whatever they wanted' as long is it was in solemn silence for a minuet.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96ait8",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "In the United States we (are supposed to) have a separation between church and state.  As public schools are state-funded, they cannot legally mandate ANY religious acts.  \n\nThe majority of children aren\u2019t even actually religious, they just are indoctrinated into their parents\u2019 religion and often become Agnostic or Atheist once their critical thinking skills improve.\n\nI\u2019m all for teaching kids meditation, but religion has no place in school.  Period.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cb42",
                    "author": "RMSQM",
                    "body": "This is illegal in the U.S. where we (theoretically) have separation of church and state. Plus, you posted the exact same thing yesterday.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cofx",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Yes, I know but I want to have the discussion with more people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96cb42"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96enmt",
                    "author": "wscuraiii",
                    "body": "You made the exact same post here, almost word for word, like two or three days ago.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hf5u",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Apologies. You sure that wasn't on r/DebateAnAtheist?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96enmt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hs3x",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "Freedom also means freedom not to participate. Why can't we just call it \"morning reflection time\" and allow people to use that to prepare their minds for the day in w/e way they deem most beneficial?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hyom",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Would this be legal? If yes, why isn't it implemented in more schools?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96hs3x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96locq",
                    "author": "auldnate",
                    "body": "There\u2019s this thing called the 1st Amendment that forbids the US government from establishing religious beliefs. So public schools are explicitly prohibited from compelling prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97ceyk",
                    "author": "a500poundchicken",
                    "body": "Yeah meditation maybe but I\u2019m an atheist wtf am I gonna prayer too also indoctrination bad",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97dn4c",
                    "author": "SingleMaltMouthwash",
                    "body": ">Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression.\n\n**Mandatory** prayer is coercion, indoctrination, grooming, brain-washing.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97kc68",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I had much rather that there be religion and theology classes taught. Classes where all the major religions are discussed and examined, with none favored. Atheism, while not a religion per se, should be included.\n\nTeaching people where religious theologies overlap, what they have in common and their differences would do a lot to diffuse the conflict between religious ideologies.\n\nForcing people to pray is not an effective way to teach what religion has to offer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97oi2c",
                    "author": "HistoricallyFunny",
                    "body": "They can pray at home. Religion should have no place in public funded situation.\n\nIf anything should be mandatory, it should be that it is illegal to join or attend religious events until you are 18.\n\nHave you noticed most peoples religions are those they were subjected to as children?  That is not a coincidence, it is the fundamental way to keep any religion in existence.\n\nChildren need our protection, not our religions desire to control them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97u2dk",
                    "author": "Threash78",
                    "body": "Religion is a cancer slowly destroying mankind. It is weaponized fear and hate. Mandating prayer is an \"instantly take up arms and fight the evil taking over the country\" moment.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97xhqe",
                    "author": "Juthatan",
                    "body": "I'm not American either but we have religious schools pubically funded for a reason (which I disagree with because religion and state should be seperate ) \n\nHere if you want to go to a school with prayer you can but many kids praying under unity? What about Islamic students who pray multiple times a day and have a method for it? I don't see schools putting in those accommodations and if they want to truly target people of all faiths one prayer is not the way to do it. \n\nA lot of the rest of this just seems like the benefits of prayer which is pretty individual and subjective",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98595h",
                    "author": "VonThirstenberg",
                    "body": "Yeah, no that's just an awfully biased take. You base it off a presumption that seems to indicate most kids in the US would be taking part in said prayer time. That's incredibly naive, and nowhere near indicative of the level of religiosity here any longer.\n\nHeck, I was raised Christian and would've told any administrator who tried to make me even sit through, let alone participate in, a specified period of time for prayer and/or reflection just where they could shove their prayer time. I'm much more respectful of those who believe in a theistic religion, regardless of their specific beliefs, than I was as a preteen/teen....and I still abhor this idea to my core. Back then, I was a good student, and such a policy would've raised such ire in me I most likely would have fought it (vocally) tooth and nail until I was expelled from the school.\n\nCurrently, my biggest issue is as an agnostic or atheistic parent, you also pay the same public school taxes as any theistic parent does. They can have their prayer time on their own time and not expose other kids to sky daddy fairy tales who don't need to be indoctrinated into believing such ridiculousness, as well as time that should be spent educating the children on actual topics that may benefit them, and society as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98cke4",
                    "author": "notmyrealnam3",
                    "body": "Religion is poison.  All this would be is have sane people pull their kids out of school.  More pray = more hate and diminishing of others.  \n\nNo fucking way , I\u2019d rather homeschool my kids than have them enslaved by dogma",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98fgvb",
                    "author": "republicansRtraytors",
                    "body": "Prayer is like masturbation: it feels good for the person doing it but does nothing for the person in their thoughts.\n\nPrayer is harmful and antithetical to education.  Prayer does not work and teaches kids to think irrationally when it comes to cause and effect.  It creates adults who cant solve their problems because they think prayer will solve them.\n\nThe notion of forcing this upon others is dispicable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98llse",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "In some religious traditions it is not \"OK\" to take part in prayer with those not of that faith.\n\nIn public prayer, Christians pray as the Body of Christ, Jews pray as the holy Israel, Muslims pray as the Nation of Islam. We can not say other people's prayers and do not expect them to say ours. Sectarian prayer violates those theological norms. There is no such thing as \"religion in general\" but only specific, concrete religions. Non-sectarian prayer can be a gesture of good will, but it can hardly express genuine faith of the faithful.\n\nAnd to force that upon people who are religious is offensive. To force it upon those who are not religious is likely to cause them no amount of confusion and offense. There's no way to do this without objectively harming people's religious freedoms. Both for those who are religious and for those who are not. \n\nFurther, the idea that non-sectarian prayer can encompass every religion is itself just silliness. There are more than 6,000 religions in this world. It is arguably impossible to create a non-sectarian prayer that would not be an offense to at least some of them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98xhm8",
                    "author": "pbjames23",
                    "body": "What about children raised as atheist?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99i1ms",
                    "author": "LaLaJoy",
                    "body": "That would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. \n\nAnd not everyone prays. I'm an atheist and I've never prayed and I would feel violated if I was being forced to by the government.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99mvir",
                    "author": "Sir-Viette",
                    "body": "Your argument is that prayer is good because it is a way of providing a bunch of benefits. And that may be true.  \n\nBut you should change your view because there\u2019s a much more effective way of providing those same benefits: Sport.\n\nSport helps students express themselves in a much more immediate way than reading from a prayer book.  \n\nSport physically burns off stress chemicals and releases endorphins at a far higher rate than prayer.  \n\nSport brings people together because they are team mates in a fun activity where there are stakes involved, which is a more effective way to bond than reading each other\u2019s family\u2019s prayer book.  \n\nYou have good intentions. But sports is a more effective means of achieving them. You should advocate mandatory sport classes instead!",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99s64k",
                    "author": "5xum",
                    "body": ">and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nFalse. People who do not pray could not join in.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99ssr2",
                    "author": "Mecha-Sailcat",
                    "body": "Replace \"prayer\" with \"salah\" and tell me you're still in favor of it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9a08re",
                    "author": "Catsmak1963",
                    "body": "What about kids who don\u2019t want to be brainwashed?\nWhat a dismal fucked up idea. You practice your faith any way you want, shove it down my throat or my kids and we will have problems",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9a29ls",
                    "author": "ThisIsMyTikTok",
                    "body": "Not mandatory but I do agree that time should be allowed for selective reflection. Obviously with private schooling, if it is e.g a Catholic school and they require a mandatory prayer in the morning from the students then fair enough to them, but public schools (or state schools, Australian here and unfamiliar with American terms) I do not believe should be mandatory as it is therefore forced upon. With the maybe 5 minutes (or whatever time thought best) given to students as an option to either pray, self reflect, meditate, unwind the mind for a moment, then 100% I would be all for it. Even if students wished not to participate in this, then a simple read of a book or little bit of whatever work they want to complete or even drawing and being artistic could be quite therapeutic to start the day and make a difference.\n\nAlso if I have naively missed the part where you basically say that this time does not need to be used for prayer by those who do not wish for something like I suggested and I have proceeded to write this argument that completely reiterates what you have already state, my bad.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9b3256",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "I am all for religion for other people, don't get me wrong. Whatever brings you comfort. Religion can be amazing for individuals.\n\nHowever, personally, I reject the idea of religion. I reject the idea of a higher power that guides my steps - that takes away my accomplishments and my mistakes. \n\nEven if there were such a thing as proof of a religion, I would still reject it. It goes against my core beliefs of free will and self determination.\n\nThis, combined, would lead me to disdain school. I've been out of it for a few years, but I don't want a world in which my eventual children are going to be forced into religion. Not a specific one - religion in general.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9dbp57",
                    "author": "Thy_gay-dungenkeep",
                    "body": "I won\u2019t go full religious bias, but I completely disagree with most of this idea. As you say, your not from the USA, but the main idea of our country, especially when educating the youth, is religious freedom. Its why the country was founded.\n\nMaking everyone have a MANDATORY prayer session kinda takes away from that idea. The pledge is borderline creepy and kinda pushes that freedom (one nation UNDER GOD) but it not being required each morning helps balance out the pros/cons IMO. I live in the country with a lot of Christians, and while not a Christian I am dating one, I can see how some people might like this idea.\n\nHaving daily prayer sessions, at least in high school/collage is a decent idea, as long as it\u2019s not 1 required and 2 only accepting Christians. Some people, mainly non-religious or don\u2019t want to openly express their religion, can use this time, say 30-45 minutes, as a study time or as a mental break. And for those who do want to openly worship a god/gods, have multiple separated rooms, and keep 1-2 open for non-Christian worship.\n\nOverall, I see the idea behind it, and I see uses for it, but I don\u2019t think it should be required OR solely based for one religion\n\nQuick edit: I am in high school currently, so please share anything I may have gotten wrong. Also not a Christian, so please say your peace in the replies if I need to edit something",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9fl7kp",
                    "author": "LunaSazuki",
                    "body": "no, not everyone is religious and doing so would impede on many rights, like the right to religion which also means the right to not practice religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i25jg",
                    "author": "genesis05",
                    "body": "As long as it's the Muslim prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i9n2o",
                    "author": "yuendeming1994",
                    "body": "While student should be free to believe or not believe any religous in US, It is even ridiculous to force or influence to believe the god. Atheist as a religous should be always an option.\n\nThe better way is to provide student a freetime to do what they want including praying.\n\n\nAlternatively, replace the religous with the patriotism maybe more justified than pray session. Student can sing the national anthem, and have opportunity to show their love to the country and the people. As people can believe in any religous but they all are the citizen of US, right?",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11681to",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95gjhc",
                "author": "physioworld",
                "body": "Let me address a few of your points:\n\n1) how and why does prayer bring people together more than other, secular, activities?\n2) it can be a form of expression but when done collectively as you suggest, I don\u2019t really see how, so it\u2019d have to be done privately which contradicts point 1. Also some students are atheists so don\u2019t believe in a god and so cannot love one. \n3) there are multiple studies showing that Intercessory prayer (prayer to try to get an outcome) has no effect on outcomes so how would it guide decision making in ways that meditation or mindfulness would not?\n4) sure it can expose people to different religions which I suppose is good (ignoring that doing it this way comes awfully close to attempted conversion) why can this not be done by studying comparative religion?\n5) this seems to contradict the need to do it before classes? Allowing students who need to separate time to pray seems fine so long as it\u2019s not too disruptive\n6) perhaps it can, but so can meditation or other secular practices- so why prayer?",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "11681to"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95h3kj",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "!delta. Good point it doesn't have to be about God because some people don't believe in God. Good point if you can't believe in God, you can't love God can you? \n\nI never said the prayer had to be intercessory. It can be form of meditation too. Compassion, peace, love etc can all be reflected on as a form of prayer.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": "j95gjhc"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95h53z",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/physioworld ([43\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/physioworld)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j95h3kj"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fl5l",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "What kind of prayer? \n\nChristian?\n\nHindu?\n\nMuslim?\n\nSatanic? \n\nWhy do you think your religion has the right to make others feel unwelcome?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fo8g",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I never said it had to be my religion. And I did say non sectarian.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95fl5l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ft3a",
                    "author": "NotSarcasmForSure",
                    "body": "Yeah the problem with that here is that religion is kind of diverse here. On the other hand, we do pledge our allegiance to our flag which I guess is kinda similar... idk if people do that in other countries",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ik0z",
                    "author": "armitageskanks69",
                    "body": "Most don\u2019t. And if they do, usually it started during an authoritarian dictatorship",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j95ft3a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fw3m",
                    "author": "Finklesfudge",
                    "body": "Is what you want, actually just \"A mandatory quiet period to do what you wish before school starts\" ?\n\nYou speak about religion but you didn't speak of people who simply don't pray, so what are you mandating them to do?  More like... just meditate on calmness or meditate quietly on whatevery they wish?\n\nIf what you want is a ability to pray before class, well... that's already a thing.  You can already do that in public schools.  You can do that yourself before class, you can do that yourself or with a group before class, almost all schools allow religious 'groups' to meet up with each other, and other than making it mandatory that they can do it in 'groups'... all those things are already allowed.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 55,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g3ud",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "The atheists can meditate on peace, calmness, etc. Good point about prayer groups. We didn't have this in my school. But if we don't mandate it, the students who did prayer or meditation will have calmer minds and therefore will be able to focus more than other students. If we mandate it, all students will get same benefit.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -20,
                    "parent_id": "j95fw3m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fwss",
                    "author": "codan84",
                    "body": "Schools have no business having any sort of official prayers at all much less mandatory prayer. It is not the place of the government to push or require prayers or any sort of religious or spiritual activity. You are not from the US so you may not be aware that we have a tradition of secular government and it is illegal for the government to establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. You forcing praying onto students at schools would be both. One is free to not practice religion and your mandated prayers would be mandatory religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 30,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g7jm",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "No, the prayer doesn't have to be explicit religious.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -11,
                    "parent_id": "j95fwss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g7wo",
                    "author": "DeliberateDendrite",
                    "body": "Why would you force people to engage in mandatory prayers? What exactly does it add to their education?\n\nAlso, have you considered that some people are not religious, are atheist or agnostic? Prayer isn't going to do anything for them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gbyn",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Sure. There are secular prayers, meditation and chants. It gives people a calmer mind and then they will be able to focus more. A good start to the day. May increase compassion. Less fighting,",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95g7wo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g9a8",
                    "author": "Eerga_tnodI",
                    "body": "Why should prayers be considered something positive and useful to being with? I find them a useless waste of time. Your whole reasoning is based on the assumption that praying has a positive connotation.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gbof",
                    "author": "Sonsangnim",
                    "body": "As a teacher, I have had in one classroom Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, and atheist students. Every one of those children has the right to be respected and feel as if they belong. Any kind of prayer would possibly make one or more of them feel as if they don't belong. That is reason enough to avoid prayer. They are there to learn, not to pray. Keep your prayers to yourself. Don't inflict them on my students.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gdww",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "What about if we make the prayer non sectarian ?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95gbof"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ggss",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "How can mixed prayer (or refusal to pray) be \"mandatory\"? Mandatory time period, but some religions can't/won't mix prayer with others. Mixing Quaker vs. Southern Baptist in the same room, for example.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gqf4",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">...Prayer brings people together, to share in worship...\n\nFalse premise. This is a ridiculous and ahistorical position, sadly. Most Nazis were practicing, confessing Catholics and there was no shortage of prayers in the trains to Aushwitz. So, no prayer does nothing. \n\nPrayers were also invoked by the mothers in Rwanda, as the priests smashed their babies' heads against the church wall.\n\nSo, no, prayer is at best, a false comfort and the argument that it brings people together is not a given.\n\nAdded: church",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 46,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gxpb",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "Just as a point of order - Nazis were not, by any majority, catholic and catholics were persecuted during the Holocaust as well, though not nearly as much as Jewish people.\n\nedited because since the OP of this thread blocked me for disagreeing, I cannot reply to anything - yes, Catholics had blame.  But 1/3 is not even half of the nazis and the nazis didn't like catholicism or protestentism either - they wanted nationalism.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "j95gqf4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gvab",
                    "author": "Guy_with_Numbers",
                    "body": "You're completely ignoring atheists, who don't benefit and/or are actively harmed by your proposition.\n\n> Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n\nIf it is the same prayer, you're forcing someone to express a faith that they don't believe in. That divides people, it doesn't unify them. If it is a prayer only they believe in, then there's no unity created at all.\n\n> Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nForcing someone to express anything (and especially love of God) is wrong, regardless of belief system.\n\n> Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n\nIf the prayer is same regardless of faith, then the exact opposite happens for those of a faith that the prayer doesn't belong to. If the prayer is different for each person, then there's no need for a session in school.\n\n> Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n\nYou can make specific accommodations for that, such as prayer halls. No need for a general prayer session that includes those who don't need such accommodations.\n\n> Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThat's your personal experience. You can't extrapolate that to others, especially those of a different faith or upbringing.\n\n> The prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nYou say that the prayer should be non sectarian. Which prayer applies to everyone, regardless of faith/lack of faith?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cvjq",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "[https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/9249/lokah-samastah-sukhino-bhavantu](https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/9249/lokah-samastah-sukhino-bhavantu)\n\nThis one",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j95gvab"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gxha",
                    "author": "PygmeePony",
                    "body": "Religion has no place in public schools, which is the reason why private schools exist. I agree that there should be time for meditation or mindfulness in all schools but the word prayer has an inherent religious meaning. There's no such thing as an agnostic or atheist prayer. Students who go to public schools should pray in their own free time outside class hours.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hs58",
                    "author": "lifejustsck0120",
                    "body": "NO. There's no need to argument about this, simple logic. Your religion is not everyone's religion and there's people like me who is atheist, who don't believe in a God\n No one forcing me or any kid at school to be praying",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hx1i",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I never said I would be enforcing MY religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j95hs58"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hz3j",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nWhy just God? Wouldn't they equally have a right to pray to Satan/the Devil? Would you be fine with some students coming in and performing ritual satanic prayers, with pentagrams and what not?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95i133",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Yes, if that's what they believe.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j95hz3j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95jbpu",
                    "author": "Pyramused",
                    "body": "\"from now on, it is mandatory for our student to speak with their imaginary friend at least once a day\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95mog1",
                    "author": "Redditor274929",
                    "body": "The problem is this totally ignores the fact not all kids are religious. I'm atheist and growing up, the rare occasion I had to pray i hated it bc I felt awkward and didn't know what to do and I felt silly the entire time",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95rjgg",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "Do it at home.  Mandatory?  Take your authoritarian views and move to a place that shares your ideology.  I\u2019ll help you move.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95rpg9",
                    "author": "RadioSlayer",
                    "body": "Fuck. No.   As a life long atheist the entire idea is infuriating.  And this would only further bullying of people like me in many places.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95v67h",
                    "author": "Crayshack",
                    "body": ">Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n\nWhat about the exclusionary effects on students who are from a religion that does not engage in group prayer, from a religion that prays in a different way incompatable with the majority of the group, or is not a part of a religion.\n\n>Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nIt is a form of expression that makes people who are not a part of the religious group uncomfortable.\n\n>Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n\nThis benefit is only present for students who already have the motivation to engage in prayer.\n\n>Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n\nThere are far better ways to be exposed to other religions than forced participation in religious rituals.  Discussing the history and beliefs of various religions can be a great way to have this exposure.  Simply engaging in prayer conveys less of a tone of learning about other religions and more of a tone of forcing students to join the dominant religion.\n\n>Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n\nMaking space so that religions that mandate prayer can pray is very different from forcing students who are not a part of a religion that mandates prayer to participate.\n\n>Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nOnly for someone who is already practiced and comfortable with prayer.  For other people, forced participation in prayer can be a source of anxiety and can directly result in students feeling less happy and more stressed.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ze9x",
                    "author": "Lazy-Lawfulness3472",
                    "body": "I don't pray! Why should I be forced to sit through YOUR prayer session?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j963tdt",
                    "author": "BidensButtWipes",
                    "body": "This breaks the first amendment. (Freedom of Religion/Speech) Compelling kids to act in prayer (For any religion) is against the amendment. However, if a kid is religious in a public school, and decides they want to pray at any point in school they absolutely can. The students still have responsibilities to fill with assignments and tests, but prayer is absolutely allowed in public schools, just not mandated by any (and shouldn't be mandated) authority. Mandating this would absolutely blow the Amendments out of the water, and any enforcement would be useless.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j966a42",
                    "author": "shouldco",
                    "body": "As a non religious person group prayer is an incredibly isolating experience.\n\nAnd for what it's worth my school did do this essentially with a \"minuet of science\" at the beginning of the day, where a student could do 'whatever they wanted' as long is it was in solemn silence for a minuet.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96ait8",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "In the United States we (are supposed to) have a separation between church and state.  As public schools are state-funded, they cannot legally mandate ANY religious acts.  \n\nThe majority of children aren\u2019t even actually religious, they just are indoctrinated into their parents\u2019 religion and often become Agnostic or Atheist once their critical thinking skills improve.\n\nI\u2019m all for teaching kids meditation, but religion has no place in school.  Period.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cb42",
                    "author": "RMSQM",
                    "body": "This is illegal in the U.S. where we (theoretically) have separation of church and state. Plus, you posted the exact same thing yesterday.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cofx",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Yes, I know but I want to have the discussion with more people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96cb42"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96enmt",
                    "author": "wscuraiii",
                    "body": "You made the exact same post here, almost word for word, like two or three days ago.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hf5u",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Apologies. You sure that wasn't on r/DebateAnAtheist?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96enmt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hs3x",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "Freedom also means freedom not to participate. Why can't we just call it \"morning reflection time\" and allow people to use that to prepare their minds for the day in w/e way they deem most beneficial?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hyom",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Would this be legal? If yes, why isn't it implemented in more schools?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96hs3x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96locq",
                    "author": "auldnate",
                    "body": "There\u2019s this thing called the 1st Amendment that forbids the US government from establishing religious beliefs. So public schools are explicitly prohibited from compelling prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97ceyk",
                    "author": "a500poundchicken",
                    "body": "Yeah meditation maybe but I\u2019m an atheist wtf am I gonna prayer too also indoctrination bad",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97dn4c",
                    "author": "SingleMaltMouthwash",
                    "body": ">Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression.\n\n**Mandatory** prayer is coercion, indoctrination, grooming, brain-washing.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97kc68",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I had much rather that there be religion and theology classes taught. Classes where all the major religions are discussed and examined, with none favored. Atheism, while not a religion per se, should be included.\n\nTeaching people where religious theologies overlap, what they have in common and their differences would do a lot to diffuse the conflict between religious ideologies.\n\nForcing people to pray is not an effective way to teach what religion has to offer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97oi2c",
                    "author": "HistoricallyFunny",
                    "body": "They can pray at home. Religion should have no place in public funded situation.\n\nIf anything should be mandatory, it should be that it is illegal to join or attend religious events until you are 18.\n\nHave you noticed most peoples religions are those they were subjected to as children?  That is not a coincidence, it is the fundamental way to keep any religion in existence.\n\nChildren need our protection, not our religions desire to control them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97u2dk",
                    "author": "Threash78",
                    "body": "Religion is a cancer slowly destroying mankind. It is weaponized fear and hate. Mandating prayer is an \"instantly take up arms and fight the evil taking over the country\" moment.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97xhqe",
                    "author": "Juthatan",
                    "body": "I'm not American either but we have religious schools pubically funded for a reason (which I disagree with because religion and state should be seperate ) \n\nHere if you want to go to a school with prayer you can but many kids praying under unity? What about Islamic students who pray multiple times a day and have a method for it? I don't see schools putting in those accommodations and if they want to truly target people of all faiths one prayer is not the way to do it. \n\nA lot of the rest of this just seems like the benefits of prayer which is pretty individual and subjective",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98595h",
                    "author": "VonThirstenberg",
                    "body": "Yeah, no that's just an awfully biased take. You base it off a presumption that seems to indicate most kids in the US would be taking part in said prayer time. That's incredibly naive, and nowhere near indicative of the level of religiosity here any longer.\n\nHeck, I was raised Christian and would've told any administrator who tried to make me even sit through, let alone participate in, a specified period of time for prayer and/or reflection just where they could shove their prayer time. I'm much more respectful of those who believe in a theistic religion, regardless of their specific beliefs, than I was as a preteen/teen....and I still abhor this idea to my core. Back then, I was a good student, and such a policy would've raised such ire in me I most likely would have fought it (vocally) tooth and nail until I was expelled from the school.\n\nCurrently, my biggest issue is as an agnostic or atheistic parent, you also pay the same public school taxes as any theistic parent does. They can have their prayer time on their own time and not expose other kids to sky daddy fairy tales who don't need to be indoctrinated into believing such ridiculousness, as well as time that should be spent educating the children on actual topics that may benefit them, and society as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98cke4",
                    "author": "notmyrealnam3",
                    "body": "Religion is poison.  All this would be is have sane people pull their kids out of school.  More pray = more hate and diminishing of others.  \n\nNo fucking way , I\u2019d rather homeschool my kids than have them enslaved by dogma",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98fgvb",
                    "author": "republicansRtraytors",
                    "body": "Prayer is like masturbation: it feels good for the person doing it but does nothing for the person in their thoughts.\n\nPrayer is harmful and antithetical to education.  Prayer does not work and teaches kids to think irrationally when it comes to cause and effect.  It creates adults who cant solve their problems because they think prayer will solve them.\n\nThe notion of forcing this upon others is dispicable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98llse",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "In some religious traditions it is not \"OK\" to take part in prayer with those not of that faith.\n\nIn public prayer, Christians pray as the Body of Christ, Jews pray as the holy Israel, Muslims pray as the Nation of Islam. We can not say other people's prayers and do not expect them to say ours. Sectarian prayer violates those theological norms. There is no such thing as \"religion in general\" but only specific, concrete religions. Non-sectarian prayer can be a gesture of good will, but it can hardly express genuine faith of the faithful.\n\nAnd to force that upon people who are religious is offensive. To force it upon those who are not religious is likely to cause them no amount of confusion and offense. There's no way to do this without objectively harming people's religious freedoms. Both for those who are religious and for those who are not. \n\nFurther, the idea that non-sectarian prayer can encompass every religion is itself just silliness. There are more than 6,000 religions in this world. It is arguably impossible to create a non-sectarian prayer that would not be an offense to at least some of them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98xhm8",
                    "author": "pbjames23",
                    "body": "What about children raised as atheist?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99i1ms",
                    "author": "LaLaJoy",
                    "body": "That would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. \n\nAnd not everyone prays. I'm an atheist and I've never prayed and I would feel violated if I was being forced to by the government.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99mvir",
                    "author": "Sir-Viette",
                    "body": "Your argument is that prayer is good because it is a way of providing a bunch of benefits. And that may be true.  \n\nBut you should change your view because there\u2019s a much more effective way of providing those same benefits: Sport.\n\nSport helps students express themselves in a much more immediate way than reading from a prayer book.  \n\nSport physically burns off stress chemicals and releases endorphins at a far higher rate than prayer.  \n\nSport brings people together because they are team mates in a fun activity where there are stakes involved, which is a more effective way to bond than reading each other\u2019s family\u2019s prayer book.  \n\nYou have good intentions. But sports is a more effective means of achieving them. You should advocate mandatory sport classes instead!",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99s64k",
                    "author": "5xum",
                    "body": ">and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nFalse. People who do not pray could not join in.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99ssr2",
                    "author": "Mecha-Sailcat",
                    "body": "Replace \"prayer\" with \"salah\" and tell me you're still in favor of it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9a08re",
                    "author": "Catsmak1963",
                    "body": "What about kids who don\u2019t want to be brainwashed?\nWhat a dismal fucked up idea. You practice your faith any way you want, shove it down my throat or my kids and we will have problems",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9a29ls",
                    "author": "ThisIsMyTikTok",
                    "body": "Not mandatory but I do agree that time should be allowed for selective reflection. Obviously with private schooling, if it is e.g a Catholic school and they require a mandatory prayer in the morning from the students then fair enough to them, but public schools (or state schools, Australian here and unfamiliar with American terms) I do not believe should be mandatory as it is therefore forced upon. With the maybe 5 minutes (or whatever time thought best) given to students as an option to either pray, self reflect, meditate, unwind the mind for a moment, then 100% I would be all for it. Even if students wished not to participate in this, then a simple read of a book or little bit of whatever work they want to complete or even drawing and being artistic could be quite therapeutic to start the day and make a difference.\n\nAlso if I have naively missed the part where you basically say that this time does not need to be used for prayer by those who do not wish for something like I suggested and I have proceeded to write this argument that completely reiterates what you have already state, my bad.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9b3256",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "I am all for religion for other people, don't get me wrong. Whatever brings you comfort. Religion can be amazing for individuals.\n\nHowever, personally, I reject the idea of religion. I reject the idea of a higher power that guides my steps - that takes away my accomplishments and my mistakes. \n\nEven if there were such a thing as proof of a religion, I would still reject it. It goes against my core beliefs of free will and self determination.\n\nThis, combined, would lead me to disdain school. I've been out of it for a few years, but I don't want a world in which my eventual children are going to be forced into religion. Not a specific one - religion in general.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9dbp57",
                    "author": "Thy_gay-dungenkeep",
                    "body": "I won\u2019t go full religious bias, but I completely disagree with most of this idea. As you say, your not from the USA, but the main idea of our country, especially when educating the youth, is religious freedom. Its why the country was founded.\n\nMaking everyone have a MANDATORY prayer session kinda takes away from that idea. The pledge is borderline creepy and kinda pushes that freedom (one nation UNDER GOD) but it not being required each morning helps balance out the pros/cons IMO. I live in the country with a lot of Christians, and while not a Christian I am dating one, I can see how some people might like this idea.\n\nHaving daily prayer sessions, at least in high school/collage is a decent idea, as long as it\u2019s not 1 required and 2 only accepting Christians. Some people, mainly non-religious or don\u2019t want to openly express their religion, can use this time, say 30-45 minutes, as a study time or as a mental break. And for those who do want to openly worship a god/gods, have multiple separated rooms, and keep 1-2 open for non-Christian worship.\n\nOverall, I see the idea behind it, and I see uses for it, but I don\u2019t think it should be required OR solely based for one religion\n\nQuick edit: I am in high school currently, so please share anything I may have gotten wrong. Also not a Christian, so please say your peace in the replies if I need to edit something",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9fl7kp",
                    "author": "LunaSazuki",
                    "body": "no, not everyone is religious and doing so would impede on many rights, like the right to religion which also means the right to not practice religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i25jg",
                    "author": "genesis05",
                    "body": "As long as it's the Muslim prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i9n2o",
                    "author": "yuendeming1994",
                    "body": "While student should be free to believe or not believe any religous in US, It is even ridiculous to force or influence to believe the god. Atheist as a religous should be always an option.\n\nThe better way is to provide student a freetime to do what they want including praying.\n\n\nAlternatively, replace the religous with the patriotism maybe more justified than pray session. Student can sing the national anthem, and have opportunity to show their love to the country and the people. As people can believe in any religous but they all are the citizen of US, right?",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11681to",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95ikim",
                "author": "Trandrogynous",
                "body": "I mean this non ironically. I would rather die than live in a world like this. Religious indoctrination disgusts me and your post comes off as extremely naive of how the world works. Religion does not teach tolerance in fact it's the absolute opposite. \n\nI'm a transgender individual. I have actual childhood trauma associated with religious indoctrination and the torture I was put through. I'm actually diagnosed with PTSD because of how I was treated by Catholics. \n\nKeep your delusional hallucinations away from children. Keep your lies and brainwashing away from children. Let them read books with real information and not mythological tales based on nothing but lies. \n\nPrayer does nothing it's nothing but a mind game you play with yourself. Teaching kids prayer does anything other than feeding into mentally ill delusions and is bad for society. Keep your cult practices in your private place of worship. Leave the rest of us alone.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 133,
                "parent_id": "11681to"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95j2hz",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "!delta because woah that's a powerful way to get me to change my view. I have PTSD too and I am transgender and it can be so hard sometimes. I didn't think prayer could cause trauma. Thanks so much for opening my eyes. View 100% changed.",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 17,
                "parent_id": "j95ikim"
            },
            {
                "id": "j95j4aq",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Trandrogynous ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Trandrogynous)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-19",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "j95j2hz"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fl5l",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "What kind of prayer? \n\nChristian?\n\nHindu?\n\nMuslim?\n\nSatanic? \n\nWhy do you think your religion has the right to make others feel unwelcome?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fo8g",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I never said it had to be my religion. And I did say non sectarian.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95fl5l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ft3a",
                    "author": "NotSarcasmForSure",
                    "body": "Yeah the problem with that here is that religion is kind of diverse here. On the other hand, we do pledge our allegiance to our flag which I guess is kinda similar... idk if people do that in other countries",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ik0z",
                    "author": "armitageskanks69",
                    "body": "Most don\u2019t. And if they do, usually it started during an authoritarian dictatorship",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j95ft3a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fw3m",
                    "author": "Finklesfudge",
                    "body": "Is what you want, actually just \"A mandatory quiet period to do what you wish before school starts\" ?\n\nYou speak about religion but you didn't speak of people who simply don't pray, so what are you mandating them to do?  More like... just meditate on calmness or meditate quietly on whatevery they wish?\n\nIf what you want is a ability to pray before class, well... that's already a thing.  You can already do that in public schools.  You can do that yourself before class, you can do that yourself or with a group before class, almost all schools allow religious 'groups' to meet up with each other, and other than making it mandatory that they can do it in 'groups'... all those things are already allowed.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 55,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g3ud",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "The atheists can meditate on peace, calmness, etc. Good point about prayer groups. We didn't have this in my school. But if we don't mandate it, the students who did prayer or meditation will have calmer minds and therefore will be able to focus more than other students. If we mandate it, all students will get same benefit.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -20,
                    "parent_id": "j95fw3m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95fwss",
                    "author": "codan84",
                    "body": "Schools have no business having any sort of official prayers at all much less mandatory prayer. It is not the place of the government to push or require prayers or any sort of religious or spiritual activity. You are not from the US so you may not be aware that we have a tradition of secular government and it is illegal for the government to establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of religion. You forcing praying onto students at schools would be both. One is free to not practice religion and your mandated prayers would be mandatory religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 30,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g7jm",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "No, the prayer doesn't have to be explicit religious.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -11,
                    "parent_id": "j95fwss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g7wo",
                    "author": "DeliberateDendrite",
                    "body": "Why would you force people to engage in mandatory prayers? What exactly does it add to their education?\n\nAlso, have you considered that some people are not religious, are atheist or agnostic? Prayer isn't going to do anything for them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gbyn",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Sure. There are secular prayers, meditation and chants. It gives people a calmer mind and then they will be able to focus more. A good start to the day. May increase compassion. Less fighting,",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95g7wo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95g9a8",
                    "author": "Eerga_tnodI",
                    "body": "Why should prayers be considered something positive and useful to being with? I find them a useless waste of time. Your whole reasoning is based on the assumption that praying has a positive connotation.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gbof",
                    "author": "Sonsangnim",
                    "body": "As a teacher, I have had in one classroom Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Hindu, and atheist students. Every one of those children has the right to be respected and feel as if they belong. Any kind of prayer would possibly make one or more of them feel as if they don't belong. That is reason enough to avoid prayer. They are there to learn, not to pray. Keep your prayers to yourself. Don't inflict them on my students.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gdww",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "What about if we make the prayer non sectarian ?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "j95gbof"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ggss",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "How can mixed prayer (or refusal to pray) be \"mandatory\"? Mandatory time period, but some religions can't/won't mix prayer with others. Mixing Quaker vs. Southern Baptist in the same room, for example.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gqf4",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">...Prayer brings people together, to share in worship...\n\nFalse premise. This is a ridiculous and ahistorical position, sadly. Most Nazis were practicing, confessing Catholics and there was no shortage of prayers in the trains to Aushwitz. So, no prayer does nothing. \n\nPrayers were also invoked by the mothers in Rwanda, as the priests smashed their babies' heads against the church wall.\n\nSo, no, prayer is at best, a false comfort and the argument that it brings people together is not a given.\n\nAdded: church",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 46,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gxpb",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "Just as a point of order - Nazis were not, by any majority, catholic and catholics were persecuted during the Holocaust as well, though not nearly as much as Jewish people.\n\nedited because since the OP of this thread blocked me for disagreeing, I cannot reply to anything - yes, Catholics had blame.  But 1/3 is not even half of the nazis and the nazis didn't like catholicism or protestentism either - they wanted nationalism.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "j95gqf4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gvab",
                    "author": "Guy_with_Numbers",
                    "body": "You're completely ignoring atheists, who don't benefit and/or are actively harmed by your proposition.\n\n> Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n\nIf it is the same prayer, you're forcing someone to express a faith that they don't believe in. That divides people, it doesn't unify them. If it is a prayer only they believe in, then there's no unity created at all.\n\n> Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nForcing someone to express anything (and especially love of God) is wrong, regardless of belief system.\n\n> Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n\nIf the prayer is same regardless of faith, then the exact opposite happens for those of a faith that the prayer doesn't belong to. If the prayer is different for each person, then there's no need for a session in school.\n\n> Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n\nYou can make specific accommodations for that, such as prayer halls. No need for a general prayer session that includes those who don't need such accommodations.\n\n> Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThat's your personal experience. You can't extrapolate that to others, especially those of a different faith or upbringing.\n\n> The prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nYou say that the prayer should be non sectarian. Which prayer applies to everyone, regardless of faith/lack of faith?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cvjq",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "[https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/9249/lokah-samastah-sukhino-bhavantu](https://www.yogapedia.com/definition/9249/lokah-samastah-sukhino-bhavantu)\n\nThis one",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "j95gvab"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95gxha",
                    "author": "PygmeePony",
                    "body": "Religion has no place in public schools, which is the reason why private schools exist. I agree that there should be time for meditation or mindfulness in all schools but the word prayer has an inherent religious meaning. There's no such thing as an agnostic or atheist prayer. Students who go to public schools should pray in their own free time outside class hours.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hs58",
                    "author": "lifejustsck0120",
                    "body": "NO. There's no need to argument about this, simple logic. Your religion is not everyone's religion and there's people like me who is atheist, who don't believe in a God\n No one forcing me or any kid at school to be praying",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hx1i",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I never said I would be enforcing MY religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "j95hs58"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95hz3j",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nWhy just God? Wouldn't they equally have a right to pray to Satan/the Devil? Would you be fine with some students coming in and performing ritual satanic prayers, with pentagrams and what not?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95i133",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Yes, if that's what they believe.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "j95hz3j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95jbpu",
                    "author": "Pyramused",
                    "body": "\"from now on, it is mandatory for our student to speak with their imaginary friend at least once a day\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95mog1",
                    "author": "Redditor274929",
                    "body": "The problem is this totally ignores the fact not all kids are religious. I'm atheist and growing up, the rare occasion I had to pray i hated it bc I felt awkward and didn't know what to do and I felt silly the entire time",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95rjgg",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "Do it at home.  Mandatory?  Take your authoritarian views and move to a place that shares your ideology.  I\u2019ll help you move.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95rpg9",
                    "author": "RadioSlayer",
                    "body": "Fuck. No.   As a life long atheist the entire idea is infuriating.  And this would only further bullying of people like me in many places.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95v67h",
                    "author": "Crayshack",
                    "body": ">Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n\nWhat about the exclusionary effects on students who are from a religion that does not engage in group prayer, from a religion that prays in a different way incompatable with the majority of the group, or is not a part of a religion.\n\n>Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n\nIt is a form of expression that makes people who are not a part of the religious group uncomfortable.\n\n>Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n\nThis benefit is only present for students who already have the motivation to engage in prayer.\n\n>Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n\nThere are far better ways to be exposed to other religions than forced participation in religious rituals.  Discussing the history and beliefs of various religions can be a great way to have this exposure.  Simply engaging in prayer conveys less of a tone of learning about other religions and more of a tone of forcing students to join the dominant religion.\n\n>Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n\nMaking space so that religions that mandate prayer can pray is very different from forcing students who are not a part of a religion that mandates prayer to participate.\n\n>Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nOnly for someone who is already practiced and comfortable with prayer.  For other people, forced participation in prayer can be a source of anxiety and can directly result in students feeling less happy and more stressed.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j95ze9x",
                    "author": "Lazy-Lawfulness3472",
                    "body": "I don't pray! Why should I be forced to sit through YOUR prayer session?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j963tdt",
                    "author": "BidensButtWipes",
                    "body": "This breaks the first amendment. (Freedom of Religion/Speech) Compelling kids to act in prayer (For any religion) is against the amendment. However, if a kid is religious in a public school, and decides they want to pray at any point in school they absolutely can. The students still have responsibilities to fill with assignments and tests, but prayer is absolutely allowed in public schools, just not mandated by any (and shouldn't be mandated) authority. Mandating this would absolutely blow the Amendments out of the water, and any enforcement would be useless.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j966a42",
                    "author": "shouldco",
                    "body": "As a non religious person group prayer is an incredibly isolating experience.\n\nAnd for what it's worth my school did do this essentially with a \"minuet of science\" at the beginning of the day, where a student could do 'whatever they wanted' as long is it was in solemn silence for a minuet.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96ait8",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "In the United States we (are supposed to) have a separation between church and state.  As public schools are state-funded, they cannot legally mandate ANY religious acts.  \n\nThe majority of children aren\u2019t even actually religious, they just are indoctrinated into their parents\u2019 religion and often become Agnostic or Atheist once their critical thinking skills improve.\n\nI\u2019m all for teaching kids meditation, but religion has no place in school.  Period.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cb42",
                    "author": "RMSQM",
                    "body": "This is illegal in the U.S. where we (theoretically) have separation of church and state. Plus, you posted the exact same thing yesterday.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96cofx",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Yes, I know but I want to have the discussion with more people.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96cb42"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96enmt",
                    "author": "wscuraiii",
                    "body": "You made the exact same post here, almost word for word, like two or three days ago.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hf5u",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Apologies. You sure that wasn't on r/DebateAnAtheist?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96enmt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hs3x",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "Freedom also means freedom not to participate. Why can't we just call it \"morning reflection time\" and allow people to use that to prepare their minds for the day in w/e way they deem most beneficial?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96hyom",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Would this be legal? If yes, why isn't it implemented in more schools?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "j96hs3x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j96locq",
                    "author": "auldnate",
                    "body": "There\u2019s this thing called the 1st Amendment that forbids the US government from establishing religious beliefs. So public schools are explicitly prohibited from compelling prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97ceyk",
                    "author": "a500poundchicken",
                    "body": "Yeah meditation maybe but I\u2019m an atheist wtf am I gonna prayer too also indoctrination bad",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97dn4c",
                    "author": "SingleMaltMouthwash",
                    "body": ">Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression.\n\n**Mandatory** prayer is coercion, indoctrination, grooming, brain-washing.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97kc68",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I had much rather that there be religion and theology classes taught. Classes where all the major religions are discussed and examined, with none favored. Atheism, while not a religion per se, should be included.\n\nTeaching people where religious theologies overlap, what they have in common and their differences would do a lot to diffuse the conflict between religious ideologies.\n\nForcing people to pray is not an effective way to teach what religion has to offer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97oi2c",
                    "author": "HistoricallyFunny",
                    "body": "They can pray at home. Religion should have no place in public funded situation.\n\nIf anything should be mandatory, it should be that it is illegal to join or attend religious events until you are 18.\n\nHave you noticed most peoples religions are those they were subjected to as children?  That is not a coincidence, it is the fundamental way to keep any religion in existence.\n\nChildren need our protection, not our religions desire to control them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97u2dk",
                    "author": "Threash78",
                    "body": "Religion is a cancer slowly destroying mankind. It is weaponized fear and hate. Mandating prayer is an \"instantly take up arms and fight the evil taking over the country\" moment.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j97xhqe",
                    "author": "Juthatan",
                    "body": "I'm not American either but we have religious schools pubically funded for a reason (which I disagree with because religion and state should be seperate ) \n\nHere if you want to go to a school with prayer you can but many kids praying under unity? What about Islamic students who pray multiple times a day and have a method for it? I don't see schools putting in those accommodations and if they want to truly target people of all faiths one prayer is not the way to do it. \n\nA lot of the rest of this just seems like the benefits of prayer which is pretty individual and subjective",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98595h",
                    "author": "VonThirstenberg",
                    "body": "Yeah, no that's just an awfully biased take. You base it off a presumption that seems to indicate most kids in the US would be taking part in said prayer time. That's incredibly naive, and nowhere near indicative of the level of religiosity here any longer.\n\nHeck, I was raised Christian and would've told any administrator who tried to make me even sit through, let alone participate in, a specified period of time for prayer and/or reflection just where they could shove their prayer time. I'm much more respectful of those who believe in a theistic religion, regardless of their specific beliefs, than I was as a preteen/teen....and I still abhor this idea to my core. Back then, I was a good student, and such a policy would've raised such ire in me I most likely would have fought it (vocally) tooth and nail until I was expelled from the school.\n\nCurrently, my biggest issue is as an agnostic or atheistic parent, you also pay the same public school taxes as any theistic parent does. They can have their prayer time on their own time and not expose other kids to sky daddy fairy tales who don't need to be indoctrinated into believing such ridiculousness, as well as time that should be spent educating the children on actual topics that may benefit them, and society as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98cke4",
                    "author": "notmyrealnam3",
                    "body": "Religion is poison.  All this would be is have sane people pull their kids out of school.  More pray = more hate and diminishing of others.  \n\nNo fucking way , I\u2019d rather homeschool my kids than have them enslaved by dogma",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98fgvb",
                    "author": "republicansRtraytors",
                    "body": "Prayer is like masturbation: it feels good for the person doing it but does nothing for the person in their thoughts.\n\nPrayer is harmful and antithetical to education.  Prayer does not work and teaches kids to think irrationally when it comes to cause and effect.  It creates adults who cant solve their problems because they think prayer will solve them.\n\nThe notion of forcing this upon others is dispicable.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98llse",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "In some religious traditions it is not \"OK\" to take part in prayer with those not of that faith.\n\nIn public prayer, Christians pray as the Body of Christ, Jews pray as the holy Israel, Muslims pray as the Nation of Islam. We can not say other people's prayers and do not expect them to say ours. Sectarian prayer violates those theological norms. There is no such thing as \"religion in general\" but only specific, concrete religions. Non-sectarian prayer can be a gesture of good will, but it can hardly express genuine faith of the faithful.\n\nAnd to force that upon people who are religious is offensive. To force it upon those who are not religious is likely to cause them no amount of confusion and offense. There's no way to do this without objectively harming people's religious freedoms. Both for those who are religious and for those who are not. \n\nFurther, the idea that non-sectarian prayer can encompass every religion is itself just silliness. There are more than 6,000 religions in this world. It is arguably impossible to create a non-sectarian prayer that would not be an offense to at least some of them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j98xhm8",
                    "author": "pbjames23",
                    "body": "What about children raised as atheist?",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99i1ms",
                    "author": "LaLaJoy",
                    "body": "That would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. \n\nAnd not everyone prays. I'm an atheist and I've never prayed and I would feel violated if I was being forced to by the government.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99mvir",
                    "author": "Sir-Viette",
                    "body": "Your argument is that prayer is good because it is a way of providing a bunch of benefits. And that may be true.  \n\nBut you should change your view because there\u2019s a much more effective way of providing those same benefits: Sport.\n\nSport helps students express themselves in a much more immediate way than reading from a prayer book.  \n\nSport physically burns off stress chemicals and releases endorphins at a far higher rate than prayer.  \n\nSport brings people together because they are team mates in a fun activity where there are stakes involved, which is a more effective way to bond than reading each other\u2019s family\u2019s prayer book.  \n\nYou have good intentions. But sports is a more effective means of achieving them. You should advocate mandatory sport classes instead!",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99s64k",
                    "author": "5xum",
                    "body": ">and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nFalse. People who do not pray could not join in.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j99ssr2",
                    "author": "Mecha-Sailcat",
                    "body": "Replace \"prayer\" with \"salah\" and tell me you're still in favor of it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9a08re",
                    "author": "Catsmak1963",
                    "body": "What about kids who don\u2019t want to be brainwashed?\nWhat a dismal fucked up idea. You practice your faith any way you want, shove it down my throat or my kids and we will have problems",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9a29ls",
                    "author": "ThisIsMyTikTok",
                    "body": "Not mandatory but I do agree that time should be allowed for selective reflection. Obviously with private schooling, if it is e.g a Catholic school and they require a mandatory prayer in the morning from the students then fair enough to them, but public schools (or state schools, Australian here and unfamiliar with American terms) I do not believe should be mandatory as it is therefore forced upon. With the maybe 5 minutes (or whatever time thought best) given to students as an option to either pray, self reflect, meditate, unwind the mind for a moment, then 100% I would be all for it. Even if students wished not to participate in this, then a simple read of a book or little bit of whatever work they want to complete or even drawing and being artistic could be quite therapeutic to start the day and make a difference.\n\nAlso if I have naively missed the part where you basically say that this time does not need to be used for prayer by those who do not wish for something like I suggested and I have proceeded to write this argument that completely reiterates what you have already state, my bad.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9b3256",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "I am all for religion for other people, don't get me wrong. Whatever brings you comfort. Religion can be amazing for individuals.\n\nHowever, personally, I reject the idea of religion. I reject the idea of a higher power that guides my steps - that takes away my accomplishments and my mistakes. \n\nEven if there were such a thing as proof of a religion, I would still reject it. It goes against my core beliefs of free will and self determination.\n\nThis, combined, would lead me to disdain school. I've been out of it for a few years, but I don't want a world in which my eventual children are going to be forced into religion. Not a specific one - religion in general.",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9dbp57",
                    "author": "Thy_gay-dungenkeep",
                    "body": "I won\u2019t go full religious bias, but I completely disagree with most of this idea. As you say, your not from the USA, but the main idea of our country, especially when educating the youth, is religious freedom. Its why the country was founded.\n\nMaking everyone have a MANDATORY prayer session kinda takes away from that idea. The pledge is borderline creepy and kinda pushes that freedom (one nation UNDER GOD) but it not being required each morning helps balance out the pros/cons IMO. I live in the country with a lot of Christians, and while not a Christian I am dating one, I can see how some people might like this idea.\n\nHaving daily prayer sessions, at least in high school/collage is a decent idea, as long as it\u2019s not 1 required and 2 only accepting Christians. Some people, mainly non-religious or don\u2019t want to openly express their religion, can use this time, say 30-45 minutes, as a study time or as a mental break. And for those who do want to openly worship a god/gods, have multiple separated rooms, and keep 1-2 open for non-Christian worship.\n\nOverall, I see the idea behind it, and I see uses for it, but I don\u2019t think it should be required OR solely based for one religion\n\nQuick edit: I am in high school currently, so please share anything I may have gotten wrong. Also not a Christian, so please say your peace in the replies if I need to edit something",
                    "date": "2023-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9fl7kp",
                    "author": "LunaSazuki",
                    "body": "no, not everyone is religious and doing so would impede on many rights, like the right to religion which also means the right to not practice religion.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i25jg",
                    "author": "genesis05",
                    "body": "As long as it's the Muslim prayer.",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11681to",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I want to make the case for school prayer. K-12 grade in the USA public schools.\n\nDisclaimer: I am not from the US and wasn't educated there.\n\nThe reason that I advocate school prayer is that\n\n1. Students of the same faith, and even of different faiths, can band together in unity. Prayer brings people together, to share in worship.\n2. Prayer, just like speech or song, is a form of expression. This gives students the opportunity to openly, or privately, pray, which conveys the love of their God.\n3. Prayer can help guide students to make the right decisions, and better choices throughout the school year. It is nice to start the day with prayers. This way, the students can take comfort in knowing that their day will be blessed.\n4. Through school prayer time, students can be exposed to different religions. If you have a diverse student body, consisting of many different faiths, students will be able to see that people pray in different ways. Being exposed to other religions can promote tolerance and kindness.\n5. Some religions require prayer time at certain times. In Islam for example, the Duhur prayer (midday) may fall in the lunch break of a student. Allowing the student time to pray in a quiet place would be respectful, even if the teacher doesn't believe.\n6. Prayer can calm the mind, making students feel happier and less stressed.\n\nThe prayer should be at the start of the day (unless a student feels they should pray at a different time, like midday, even then extra prayers are good) It might be maximum 5-10 minutes, and non sectarian, so everyone can join in.\n\nDebate me because according to my friends I'm starting to sound right wing and conservative and a bit too pious. I want to change my mind.",
                    "date": "2023-02-19",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Public Schools Should Have A Mandatory Prayer Session Before School Starts (USA)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11681to/cmv_public_schools_should_have_a_mandatory_prayer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "j9i9n2o",
                    "author": "yuendeming1994",
                    "body": "While student should be free to believe or not believe any religous in US, It is even ridiculous to force or influence to believe the god. Atheist as a religous should be always an option.\n\nThe better way is to provide student a freetime to do what they want including praying.\n\n\nAlternatively, replace the religous with the patriotism maybe more justified than pray session. Student can sing the national anthem, and have opportunity to show their love to the country and the people. As people can believe in any religous but they all are the citizen of US, right?",
                    "date": "2023-02-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11681to"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11dduj8",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 8,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "ja81453",
                "author": "eggsperience",
                "body": "I think you may need to do your analysis with smaller area chunks to yield more meaningful results in this argument. Within each state/city, there could be a significant difference in firearm homicides between areas with high and low firearm ownership. That said, nonfatal injuries are also a form of gun violence.\n\nThe reason why we don't refer to ODs as drug violence is because they usually are performed by the person who dies. In the case of gun violence, one person kills another. Still, increased unrestricted access to drugs is correlated with a higher rate of death by OD. Unrestricted drug access sets the stage for all complications of addiction. Same goes for guns, except the only \"complications\" of guns are physical harm. Hence why people are so, ahem, up in arms about it.",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": -1,
                "parent_id": "11dduj8"
            },
            {
                "id": "ja89i62",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": ">The reason why we don't refer to ODs as drug violence is because they usually are performed by the person who dies. In the case of gun violence, one person kills another.\n\nWhen talking about firearm suicides, it is not the case that one person kills another though. That's the reason I believe that including firearm sucides under gun violence is disingenuous.\n\nConsider another weapon: We don't count suicides by wrist slashing in accounts of violence committed by bladed weapons.\n\n>Still, increased unrestricted access to drugs is correlated with a higher rate of death by OD.\n\nI believe the experience of Portugal calls this statement into question.\n\nThat said, I will give you a !delta for this, which is a point I didn't make, but do agree with (and never really held differently, but I think it's an important call out and does nuance my view as I wrote it)\n\n>Within each state/city, there could be a significant difference in firearm homicides between areas with high and low firearm ownership.\n\nI agree that patterns can exist, and such an analysis would be useful. I am unaware of how to obtain county-level firearm ownership data that isn't based on some proxy which would introduce covariance challenges. If you know of such a data set, I'll gladly do the math.",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ja81453"
            },
            {
                "id": "ja89k5e",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/eggsperience ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/eggsperience)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ja89i62"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7zj9q",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "It's disingenuous to ignore suicides by firearm since we know that many of those victims would be alive if they did not have accsess to a gun.\n\n> We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence. \n\nIt would be impossible to regulate or restrict accsess to implements someone can hang themselfs with, but if it was possible then you would see these studies. \n\n> We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.\n\nWe have endless studies about drug violence, death and overdose. As a result of those studies we have countless laws and regulations restricting drug accsess.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 52,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja81kgm",
                    "author": "Beautiful_Taste_",
                    "body": "They would just use another method.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "ja7zj9q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7zmny",
                    "author": "StrangerThanGene",
                    "body": "> the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation\n\nInstead of your data set statistics, let's use common sense.\n\nUsing your logic: \n\n*The relationship between water and water deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.*\n\n*The relationship between lightning and lightning deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.*\n\n*The relationship between sharks and shark deaths doesn't show any strong correlation*.\n\nDoes... any of that make sense to you?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja85js0",
                    "author": "alpicola",
                    "body": "All of that, actually, makes perfect sense.\n\n>The relationship between water and water deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nWhether I'm standing next to a glass of water, a full water cooler, a swimming pool, a lake, or an ocean, my odds of being killed by water are all approximately zero.  I need to have my face in the water in order for it to kill me.\n\n>The relationship between lightning and lightning deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nDeath by lightning is a rare occurrence, made rarer by the fact that most people take shelter in a storm.  If you want to increase lightning deaths, you'll get much better results by removing shelters and handing people metal poles than you will by just adding more lightning.\n\n>The relationship between sharks and shark deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nIt doesn't really matter how many sharks are in the zoo, nobody has ever died because a shark bit them through the glass.  It's swimming with the sharks that's dangerous, not just having one hanging out over there.\n\nThe point of this is that the absolute amount of a thing isn't necessarily what makes it dangerous.  How we interact with the thing matters a whole lot more.\n\nApplying this to gun violence, what we find is that most guns are never used illegally and many guns are never used at all.  Collectors have guns that they will never fire.  Hunters may own multiple guns for shooting different kinds of animals, but would never point one of those at a human.  Giving an extra gun (or two, or ten) to people who don't shoot or who consistently practice good gun safety won't cause them to suddenly become killers.\n\nConversely, someone who does want to kill someone else really only needs one gun to get that done.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "ja7zmny"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7znr1",
                    "author": "Trucker2827",
                    "body": "Could you discuss what your methodology did differently than this study, which has the opposite conclusion as you?\n\nhttps://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409\n\n\u201cMethods. We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u2019s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.\n\nResults. **Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates** (incidence rate ratio\u2009=\u20091.009; 95% confidence interval\u2009=\u20091.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 95,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja89g4f",
                    "author": "pluralofjackinthebox",
                    "body": "At the very least this shows that \n\n> The only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set\n\nIs not true.\n\nYou might disagree with the methodology, but there are other ways to make the connection besides including suicides.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "ja7znr1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7zvqe",
                    "author": "Only_Outcome4297",
                    "body": "\n\nThere is absolutely a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. Availability to guns + cultural factors = higher gun deaths.\n\nThere is also a very strong link between gun ownership and impulsive suicide. You can choose to group and segment the deaths however you want, but if you're analysing all deaths by firearms then excluding suicide would be wrong.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja88k38",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "When you consider how safe it is to own rope, do you consider strangulation deaths as \"rope violence\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ja7zvqe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja80ese",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": ">Similar analysis on the global level by nations yields\n\n[Similar analysis on a global level by nations yields an unquestionable link between gun ownership level and gun violence/death level.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081)",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja82atq",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Gun \"violence\" counts suicides. That is disingenuous and speaks directly to my point. It conflates criminal activities that harm others with activities that do not harm others.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": -10,
                    "parent_id": "ja80ese"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja80mr2",
                    "author": "Pastadseven",
                    "body": "> the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesnt show any strong correlation\n\nThis statement is absurd on its face. Of course gun homicide is strongly correlated with the presence of guns, would you be able to perpetrate a shooting without a gun?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 37,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8259k",
                    "author": "Skuuder",
                    "body": "You need to breathe oxygen in order to kill someone too, do you think gun violence MUST correlate with atmospheric oxygen saturation?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": -14,
                    "parent_id": "ja80mr2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja81vku",
                    "author": "Jebofkerbin",
                    "body": ">We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.\n\nSure but there are loads of steps to limit drug overdoses of over the counter drugs that have already been taken.\n\nThings like limiting the amount of the same drug you can buy from one store and switching from bottle medication to pallets with individually packaged tablets are things that have been done to limit drug overdoses.\n\nNo such steps have been taken to lower gun suicides.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja89hko",
                    "author": "ATLEMT",
                    "body": "I believe part of the reasoning for waiting periods was to prevent people buying a gun to kill themselves.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja81vku"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja82ukh",
                    "author": "Fit-Order-9468",
                    "body": ">However, this is disingenuous.\n\nBeing wrong about something doesn't make you a liar. Disagreeing with the meaning of \"violence\" doesn't make you a liar either. It just means you're wrong or disagreeing.\n\nThis is an unfair attack on someone's character. I'd imagine as a (presumably) gun-owner, you would be tired of being insulted and people making negative assumptions about you. Perhaps you should extend others courtesy that you would like?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 18,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja84f89",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "I don't own a gun. I never have. I am knowledgeable about firearms, and taught small arms use while in the military.   \n\n\nIt may be the case that some people are unaware of the lack of intellectual integrity needed to manipulate results in this way. But the people who are aware of this data -- which I believe includes the vast majority of gun-control advocates who parrot the stats continuously -- either know the manipulations being done or are so lacking in integrity as to bother checking. That may not make them disingenuous, but it certainly makes them less than honest interlocutors precisely because they are repeating information they have no reason to believe.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ja82ukh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja83552",
                    "author": "TallahasseWaffleHous",
                    "body": ">Similar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r2 of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm but has since been removed).\n\nThe reason that post was removed is because its analysis was wrong by a mile.  An upvoted comment in that  thread,\n\"This is low effort at misinformation.\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja84cgk",
                    "author": "Leucippus1",
                    "body": "There are two problems with this analysis, the first is you are wrong about the correlation.\n\n[https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409)[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)\n\nThere is a difference between ropes and drugs and guns. The primary purpose of a gun is violence, that is what it is designed to do. So using a gun in a violent way is using it with its intended purpose, whereas killing with a rope or drugs is using those tools the way they were not intended. That is a difference worth exploring because it offers a meaningful reason why serious people say 'gun violence' but don't say 'rope violence'. In short, the latter is glib and unhelpful.\n\nThe history to this research is helpful to understand. The CDC funded a study years ago examining the impact of guns on overall health, the findings were so bad that the NRA lobbied the US congress to make such studies un-fundable under something called the Dickey Amendment. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey\\_Amendment#:\\~:text=The%20NRA%20responded%20by%20lobbying,Bill%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%201997.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment#:~:text=The%20NRA%20responded%20by%20lobbying,Bill%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%201997.))\n\nAt the same time, there was someone named John Lott, an economist, who wrote an influential (and very essentially wrong) book called \"More Guns, Less Crime,\" which energized the nascent gun rights movement, you can write a whole essay just on that, which culminated in the disastrous *Heller* decision. Knowledgeable people knew MGLC was nonsense but since their research was hampered by federal policy there wasn't a lot of solid data they could present. So, MGLC became lore in a lot of people's heads.\n\nFast forward some years and private funds eventually made up for the lack of federal research dollars and we find that what people suspected all along was true. More guns = more gun crime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja85ofp",
                    "author": "iamintheforest",
                    "body": "Firstly, people on the \"pro-gun-rights\" side simplify the stance significantly.  Most on the left believe that _reduction in firewarms access will reduce gun violence_.  This is very different than saying volumes of guns are the cause of gun violence.  What is disengenous is conflating part of an overall solution to gun violence with a diagnosis of the cause.  \n\nFurther, we absolutely call any death by drug part of the \"drug problem\" and when someone who is an addict kills themselves through any means we regard their addiction as part of the cause.  We also absolutely try to keep ropes away from people who are known to be suicidal.  \n\nTry looking at someone that is more \"genuine\" with regards to the position of the left, rather than fabricating the ideology to fit your political agenda.  Look at impacts of regulation and control in countries.  Look at it in states. Look at it by country.\n\nBut..EVEN THEN, your position is countered handily by most credible research that puts a bit more rigor into the analysis than your work:\n\nhttps://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8dgxm",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">Most on the left believe that  reduction in firewarms access will reduce gun violence. \n\n  \nBeing that (a) I'm on the left, and (b) I actually want to see reductions in firearm violence, I don't buy that statement.   \n\n\nThe majority response on the left from the recent attack on the Michigan State University shooting was to call for restrictions on types of weapons not used in the shooting.  Something that was seen up to the Office of the President.   \n\n\nThe number one call I continually hear from the left is a call to ban AR-15s, even though long arms are used in a statistically insignificant number of homicides.   \n\n\nAnd while I hear plenty on the left calling for policies that would impact gun violence -- from addressing poverty and income inequality to access to mental health care to addressing domestic violence issues. I see almost no one on the left connecting those policies to gun violence outside of groups l like the [The Liberal Gun Club](https://theliberalgunclub.com/). Members of which are routinely ostracized by the mainstream left for a general failure to adhere to orthodoxy when it comes to gun control.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja85ofp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja86upg",
                    "author": "Long-Rate-445",
                    "body": "all the states with the highest amount of gun ownership have the highest rates of homicide & gun violence in the US",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8eqvl",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Is  this true?\n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\\_of\\_U.S.\\_states\\_and\\_territories\\_by\\_intentional\\_homicide\\_rate](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm)  \n\n\nDC has a very low gun ownership rate, yet tops the charts. IL and MD are very restrictive states for gun laws. But sit in the top quintile.   \nME, NH, ID, VT, WY, UT, MN, KS, IA all have high gun ownership rates, yet are all well into the lowest quintile when it comes to homicide rates.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja86upg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja88fp5",
                    "author": "Beginning_Impress_99",
                    "body": "Suppose another person interprets the data and comes up with an opposite conclusion, and then they claim that you are being disingenuous. Who gets the last say on who is disingenuous?\n\n​\n\nAnd suppose there are somehow an objective answer of which is your stance. How would you know whether they are 'being ***intentionally*** *wrong but lying about it*'? You need to provide more evidence than that 'I am right' to prove that they are '***intentionally lying***' instead of just mistaken.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8iqfe",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "If someone did the math, then to say it is conclusive would be wrong. You can't look at 1+1=2 and say people could come to the conclusion that it's =3.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja88fp5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja896db",
                    "author": "pedrito77",
                    "body": "What about deadly police shootings? in america you have more than [1000](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) deadly police shootings a year,  in Spain we [had 7 in 3 years](https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/seguridad/muertos-33-heridos-balance-uso-armas-fuego-policias-guardias-civiles-ultimos-anos/20210910133903274378.html) vs 3163 last 3 years in america,  that is x64 times more adjusted for population, america has x7 more people than Spain,  so you have to divide 3163 deadly police shootings in the last 3 years  vs 7 deaths in Spain and divided by 7 times more people and you have the 64, why??\n\nI TELL YOU why, because police mindset is \"anyone can have a weapon, better shoot first and ask questions later\". That is why. And that happens in any criminal interaction, that's why murders and deadly shootings are so high in america.\n\nI am tired of watching hundreds of videos that end up in a shooting by the police or by civilians that would have not ended that way in most of europe, and that is because of guns.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jhyw",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "A criminals actions shouldn't remove rights of the law abiding. It's ridiculous to suggest that because criminals do something bad others shouldn't have it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja896db"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja89r83",
                    "author": "anonymous6789855433",
                    "body": "guns can't be used to bind or bundle",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8l978",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Are you suggesting guns have no legitimate uses outside of killing people?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja89r83"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8a6xq",
                    "author": "midnightking",
                    "body": " I haven't seen the post on r/dataisbeautiful but the top comments seem to be pointing out that the residuals are not normallly distributed, which is one of the core assumptions for a linear regression.\n\nThe peer reviewed data tells a different story. Forgive me but I am going to copy-paste  a previous post I made on US studies on gun ownership.\n\nAccording to a meta-annalysis, guns are linked to an increase [homicide victimization and an increase in odds of suicide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24592495/) in the home. States with more gun ownership have higher [suicide rates](https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/sltb.12346) and [homicide](https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-02/Siegel%2C%20The%20Relationship%20Between%20Gun%20Ownership%20and%20Firearm%20Homicide%20Rates%20in%20the%20US%202013.pdf) (yes, overall [homicide](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/20/6/424.full.pdf?casa_token=RhDS8CQSyVUAAAAA:yoipsPprqbSx7xW2s7Gs0gBYTyMJd_SJx04qExhARzCr9Cv1gweRrflgBgF3_sjUeRIjFNrGylo)), net of multiple socio-economic, sociological and psychopathological factors. The idea that guns increase suicide odds is also very uncontroversial amongst gun researchers. In a survey of over 100 of them, [84%](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/23/4/221.full.pdf) agreed that gun ownership increased the odds of suicide in the home.Most importantly, people are more likely to use guns [to commit suicide](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) and guns are more deadly than other [methods](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/). Finally, guns owners [also weren't less likely to be injured](https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.029)  when being victimized. All in all it seems the costs of owning a gun often outweigh the gains of having them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8apno",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "Gun suicide gets a focus due to its efficacy - most common suicide methods don\u2019t hold the fair heat candle to attempts with guns which succeed 97% of the time, drug ODs for example are between 15-25%. The only real exceptions is anchored drowning, as in tying yourself to a weight and pushing that in to drag you down in a deep body of water, that floats around 80% but it\u2019s harder to qualify given variance in exact methodology, from anchor used to method of attachment.\n\nAll that aside gun ownership is stupidly obviously related to gun crime and deaths as the latter requires the first. It\u2019s like saying peanut allergic reactions have nothing to do with peanuts.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8bw1h",
                    "author": "lighting214",
                    "body": "The data for gun ownership will always be unreliable when many states, especially high gun ownership states, do not require registration of firearms with any kind of law enforcement or centralized registry. There is no authoritative source in many states, much less at a national level, of how many guns there actually are in this country and who owns them.\n\nAs they say, garbage in, garbage out.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8edjg",
                    "author": "spacetimeguy",
                    "body": "This analysis has the exact same flaw as all those dietary studies that contradict each other.\n\nThere are far more than two variables that interact and influence each other.\n\nGrapefruit juice is harmless. So are most heart disease medications. But both in combination can be deadly.\n\nPeanut butter is harmless. So is dairy. But if the peanut butter was made in a culture that's lax about their ingredient standards, and trace amounts of peanut *mold* get into that peanut butter, it's still harmless, unless you also drink a lot of milk. Then it will give you liver cancer, even in kids. Source: The China Study by T. Colin Cambell\n\nThe point -- Guns are not a problem in a *homogenous* society. But if you consider the economic and racial diversity of a culture as a variable alongside gun proliferation, it tells a whole different story.\n\nWhich is the more achievable goal; eliminate private ownership of guns, or create a more inclusive, egalitarian and homogenous society?\n\nIf you want to keep your guns, you *must* work to eliminate racism, poverty and improve the education of this country. Like they say, freedom isn't free. You have a social responsibility to create the culture that makes guns a non-issue. You won't get it by creating more divisiveness.\n\nOr you can lose your guns. You decide. One or the other will eventually happen. It's just a matter of how much blood gets spilled between now and then.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8o17r",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">If you want to keep your guns, you must work to eliminate racism, poverty and improve the education of this country. Like they say, freedom isn't free. You have a social responsibility to create the culture that makes guns a non-issue. You won't get it by creating more divisiveness.  \n>  \n>Or you can lose your guns. You decide. One or the other will eventually happen. It's just a matter of how much blood gets spilled between now and then.\n\n  \nI don't disagree with this sentiment at all.   \n\n\nI'm repeatedly excoriated in r/progun for pointing out that by not working to address the root causes of violence, and in particular, gun violence, gun owners are demonstrating that they aren't socially responsible enough to retain the right to own arms.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja8edjg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8hj50",
                    "author": "kunkworks",
                    "body": "So, there is absolutely correlation between gun ownership, and gun violence in any capacity, criminal or not. I don't think anyone denies this.\n\nYour main contention is that gun ownership is the cause of criminal gun violence. Or put more simply, that owning a gun makes you violent.  \n\nThe other argument would be that carrying a gun may make one feel powerful over others, and perhaps you may want to yield that power, which may result in criminality.\n\nI think that physiologically, carrying a firearm could affect your mental state, and lead you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do.  But I couldn't say for sure.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8qqm4",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">I think that physiologically, carrying a firearm could affect your mental state, and lead you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do.\n\nI think this is absolutely a reasonable hypothesis to test out. And, interestingly, many researchers have.   \n\n\nThis study [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S107275151832074X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S107275151832074X) for example found \"no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime.\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8hj50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jd2s",
                    "author": "U_Dun_Know_Who_I_Am",
                    "body": "Biggest flaw is ignoring other variables. \n\nCrime of any kind is higher in big cities. Big cities are more common in non-agricultural areas/states. #of guns owned is higher in agricultural and sparcly populated areas. \n\nSo going by # of guns rather than # of households with guns is the first big flaw. Second remove households with valid need for a gun like hunting or defense of self and property from animals.\n\nSecond, missed variable is that people can easily get a gun in one state and bring it to another where they own and carry it illegally.\n\nSo calculate it on the number of households with a gun solely for self defense against humans that was purchased and owned legally, vs number of gun homicides. That will give you the applicable stat for gun control.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jshu",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "> Second remove households with valid need for a gun like hunting or defense of self and property from animals.\n\nSo do people not have a right to defend themselves against criminals?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "ja8jd2s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jj03",
                    "author": "SecretRecipe",
                    "body": "You need to look at it big picture.  Compare gun ownership rates by country vs criminal gun deaths...  More guns in circulation = far higher odds that guns are going to be used in the commission of a crime period.    \n\n\nConversely gun ownership rates have zero correlation on safety.  For example some of the states with the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest rates of Rape.  So the whole \"personal protection\" angle is also a big fat myth.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9fb4n",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/119ya65/cmv_repeal_the_second_amendment/j9or6ts?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3\n\nThis comparison has been done. The USA with less strict gun control is not very high compared to developed nations when it comes to homicides or gun homicides even if the gun laws are strict in other places. You can point out singular places that are better, but there is no trend.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8jj03"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8kjtu",
                    "author": "zephillou",
                    "body": "Guns are tools. And they were designed/created explicitly as a weapon to effectively harm with a low level of physical effort from the user. So we could say that the intent of acquiring a gun is violence; whether for inflicting a threat of violence or to use as a defense from violence.\n\nIf the tool is widely available, commonly used and effective at what it was designed to do which is to shoot to harm (whether you be on the attacking or defending side of it), it will definitely be part of the equation of crime. And it will be more common in the culture to have it as a plausible option/outcome.\n\nIf it isn't as widespread or easy to acquire, it won't be used as much. Also laws around usage of said guns can make a difference as well. If it's to be used mainly for \"sport\" (hunting, marksmanship, etc) and not to be used against fellow humans, even for self-defense, where very severe sanctions would be applied if wrongfully used, you wouldn't see as much usage as it would fall more under the hobbyist category than the common \"kill or be killed\" type of deal. On the other end of the spectrum it would fall under the illegal use umbrella which doesn't represent the majority of the population.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8ktxh",
                    "author": "I_Did_your_mom420",
                    "body": "Nah this shit is wild",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8mgwd",
                    "author": "DumboRider",
                    "body": "Try again with world data, maybe compare America to Italy, Germany, or whatever. You Will be amazed on how significant the correlation is",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9buis",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "That's literally what was done. With world data.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8mgwd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8p56t",
                    "author": "cherflugen",
                    "body": "To be as snarky as possible\u2026 if no one owned guns there would be no gun violence\u2026\n\nThe data has been very clear for a very long time. Turns out if you don\u2019t own a gun or otherwise have access to one (via someone or something that owns one) you can\u2019t commit gun related offenses\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9bs5g",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "To be as blunt as possible. No tyrannical government commits genocide on their people without disarming them first.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8p56t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja91j65",
                    "author": "GizatiStudio",
                    "body": ">The only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.\n\nIs it disingenuous to count serious injury as gun violence? Asking for the guy in the wheelchair and his family whose whole lives were ruined.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9b4jj",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "Normally it's stated that \"____ number of people have died from gun violence.\" So no. It would not include this person you bring up. However, your attempt to make this an emotional debate true proved OPs point.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja91j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja95u7q",
                    "author": "NuncErgoFacite",
                    "body": "You are positing two theories and it is making any meaningful argument in text highly difficult.\n\n1) Gun ownership is not causal to gun violence.\n\n2) People who maintain that there is a causal link are disingenuous (disingenuous is defined as not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does). So, you are politely implying willful deception on their part.\n\nTo the second point, I have to ask \"why?\". What is the motivation here? Is it some vague notion of being un-American (I am assuming this is an america located debate) or seizing power? Why would half of your country's population seek to lower gun availability and lie about why they are doing it?\n\nMore honestly, \"How?\" How would 150,000,000 people keep their talking points straight as to them lying about why they want to lower gun access? Seems unlikely.\n\nI have heard most of the talking points over the years, and they sound either emotional or conspiratorial. And not conspiracy in terms of \"the government is controlling us through chem trails\"; rather a flavor of \"unpatriotic\" or anti-patriotism\".\n\n​\n\nTo the first point, [HERE](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) is a breakdown you missed. Further, your assertion that 0.079 is insignificant is an opinion, but hardly empirical fact. You are using an epidemiology assessment tool that, while applied for various reasons to firearm deaths, is generally used to apply numbers to diseases which affect all people, everywhere. \n\nHowever, cancer, heart attack, high blood pressure, the flu, H1N1, etc. are not preventable morbidities. They are treatable, but not preventable. Motor vehicle deaths are preventable. We don't accept the cost (ie - not driving cars), but it is wholly preventable in a way that cancer is not.\n\nAssault is generally considered unpreventable. There are society level strategies to lower or raise the number: employment rates, access to food, water, and health care, education completion, child care, elder care, employment options, income, inflation, etc. But even in a utopian situation for all the above factors, it is thought that human nature will lead to some level of assault.\n\nBut gun related violence falls into the second category with motor vehicle related deaths. We could, wholly and completely, make gun rated violence go away by removing all the guns in the private sector. Will some people continue to smuggle and black market guns into the private sector, yes - but that is not the point here. Should we do it - also not the point here. The point is that we (society) could make it happen over the course of 50-100 years. Make it so untenable to own a firearm of any kind that finding one would be like finding a switchblade today in great-grandpa's trunk upstairs. An oddity.\n\nWe have no recourse in the realm of heart attacks and strokes. Take away all the saturated fat in the world, and some people are still going to get elected. Cancer? Same problem. That is just the real world.\n\nSo, the two concepts of gun mortality and cancer mortality are irreconcilable goods. Such regressions are used for epidemiologic purposes because it is easier to talk about the numbers as given. But like other sociologic data formats, there are significant limitations.\n\n​\n\nMoving on, in the first point. According to your web link Texas and Florida have the most fire arms in the private sector. And Delaware and Rhode island have the least. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of gun related violence between those four states. Not as a proof, but rather as a proof of concept. If Delaware and RI are firmly lower in gun related incidents than Texas or FL - I think your theory may not hold water. The per capita list to the right would make for a similar comparison, no?\n\n​\n\nThat's all I have. Hope it helps. Cheers!",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9c8vy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">Gun ownership is not causal to gun violence.\n\nNope. I'm arguing that gun ownership is not causal to gun crime.   \n\n\n\"Gun violence\" is a term used primarily by gun control advocates intentionally chosen to obfuscate the discussion by combining homicide and suicide into a single category.   \n\n\n>People who maintain that there is a causal link are disingenuous (disingenuous is defined as not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does). So, you are politely implying willful deception on their part.\n\nPeople who seek to imply that there is a causal link between gun ownership and public safety by using the analysis between gun ownership and gun violence are disingenuous because suicide is not a public safety risk.   \n\n\nIn my OP, I argue that there is wilful deception because they know the distinctions between these categories. They know that their analysis fails if gun homicides alone are used. So therefore, they seek to deceive through obfuscation to push a political agenda that is unproven and without analytical support, and at worst, they know it will not work.   \n\n\nI have since given a delta for changing my view that this applies to people in general. I am now willing to limit this view to those who are pushing the agenda and/or doing the analysis; but that the nuance and complexity of the issue as well as the general lack of knowledge of statistics and research methods means that the average person can not be being said to be disingenuous. \n\n​\n\n>We could, wholly and completely, make gun rated violence go away by removing all the guns in the private sector. Will some people continue to smuggle and black market guns into the private sector, yes - but that is not the point here\n\n​\n\nIt is illegal for anyone at all in the private sector to own guns in Brunei, but they have a firearm homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000. The same is true of Cambodia, whose firearm homicide rate is 3.4 per 100,000. Comoros, 12.2. Eritrea 17.8. Fiji 2.8. Guinea-Bissau 20.2. Maldives 1.6. Seychelles 8.3. Solomon Islands 3.7. Somalia 1.5 (but doesn't count political violence as homicides it seems). Timor-Leste 6.9.   \n\n\nTotal bans of private sector firearms doesn't actually have a particularly good record for limiting firearm homicides around the world.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja95u7q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9e2hn",
                    "author": "ajtallone",
                    "body": "You need to have a gun in order to murder someone with a gun\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9hx73",
                    "author": "KikiYuyu",
                    "body": "My opinion on guns isn't based on rates or statistics. I just know that many mass shootings were done with legally owned guns, that's enough for me to see that as a big problem. \n\nIf I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there's nothing disingenuous about my stance on this.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9kc40",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "That's not a very thorough opinion though. That's like saying I know most drunk driving accidents happen by people with legal drivers license.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja9hx73"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9jt1n",
                    "author": "PhoenixxFeathers",
                    "body": "It is not mistaken or disingenuous to say guns need to be present for people to use guns violently - that is an inescapable fact.  \n\nIf we accept the fact that there is no perfect system to control who has a gun, then it logically follows that the availability of guns for legal use increases the prevalence of guns obtained illegally.  In the case of gun violence in countries with strict gun control or outright bans, the guns either trace back to countries with high availability or to the government controlled supply (as is the case with Venezuela), but the point remains - availability of guns for legal use necessarily must increase availability for illegal use.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9ld1n",
                    "author": "AwardOk1534",
                    "body": "Multi prong problem.  Responsible ownership isn\u2019t one of the problem prongs.  Unfortunately, which happens often, it\u2019s the irresponsible that get the attention.  That is probably where the problem solving should lie.  Take out the responsible variable & focus on what\u2019s left\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jajzo2z",
                    "author": "Tetepupukaka53",
                    "body": "Actually, the common, collectivist premise of Leftwing philosophies has more to do with mass shootings than gun ownership.\n\nMass violence would decrease more if *THAT* was eliminated, as opposed to gun ownership.\n\nBut then, \"banning\" collectivism is a perfectly *collectivist* thing to do. . .",
                    "date": "2023-03-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11dduj8",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 8,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "ja86boo",
                "author": "An-Okay-Alternative",
                "body": "Your data for gun-ownership is weapons per capita, not individual gun owners per capita. If we're testing the hypothesis between access to guns and gun homicides, someone who owns 30 guns wouldn't be assumed to be 30x as likely to commit a homicide.\n\nSecondly, as the article points out \"only firearms that have special restrictions on them like fully automatic weapons, short-barreled best home defense shotguns, etc. will appear on this list\" and \"NFA items purchased by law enforcement agencies are included in the calculation.\"\n\nThe data does not include the most commonly owned firearms, is biased by the rate of gun collectors and hobbyists, and is confounded by purchases by law enforcement.\n\nYour calculation is not very strong evidence that gun ownership has no correlation with gun homicides, and does not suggest at all that detractors are being dishonest by not coming to the same conclusion as you.",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": "11dduj8"
            },
            {
                "id": "ja8dur6",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "I'm not suggesting that my data set is perfect (no data set is when looking at social phenomena). Still, I do believe it is better than pure proxy calculations based on things like suicide rates or subscriptions to magazines.   \n\n\nStill here's a !delta for pointing out the issues with the data I have, which I should have done myself.",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "ja86boo"
            },
            {
                "id": "ja8dxz7",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/An-Okay-Alternative ([4\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/An-Okay-Alternative)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ja8dur6"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7zj9q",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "It's disingenuous to ignore suicides by firearm since we know that many of those victims would be alive if they did not have accsess to a gun.\n\n> We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence. \n\nIt would be impossible to regulate or restrict accsess to implements someone can hang themselfs with, but if it was possible then you would see these studies. \n\n> We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.\n\nWe have endless studies about drug violence, death and overdose. As a result of those studies we have countless laws and regulations restricting drug accsess.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 52,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja81kgm",
                    "author": "Beautiful_Taste_",
                    "body": "They would just use another method.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "ja7zj9q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7zmny",
                    "author": "StrangerThanGene",
                    "body": "> the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation\n\nInstead of your data set statistics, let's use common sense.\n\nUsing your logic: \n\n*The relationship between water and water deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.*\n\n*The relationship between lightning and lightning deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.*\n\n*The relationship between sharks and shark deaths doesn't show any strong correlation*.\n\nDoes... any of that make sense to you?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja85js0",
                    "author": "alpicola",
                    "body": "All of that, actually, makes perfect sense.\n\n>The relationship between water and water deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nWhether I'm standing next to a glass of water, a full water cooler, a swimming pool, a lake, or an ocean, my odds of being killed by water are all approximately zero.  I need to have my face in the water in order for it to kill me.\n\n>The relationship between lightning and lightning deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nDeath by lightning is a rare occurrence, made rarer by the fact that most people take shelter in a storm.  If you want to increase lightning deaths, you'll get much better results by removing shelters and handing people metal poles than you will by just adding more lightning.\n\n>The relationship between sharks and shark deaths doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nIt doesn't really matter how many sharks are in the zoo, nobody has ever died because a shark bit them through the glass.  It's swimming with the sharks that's dangerous, not just having one hanging out over there.\n\nThe point of this is that the absolute amount of a thing isn't necessarily what makes it dangerous.  How we interact with the thing matters a whole lot more.\n\nApplying this to gun violence, what we find is that most guns are never used illegally and many guns are never used at all.  Collectors have guns that they will never fire.  Hunters may own multiple guns for shooting different kinds of animals, but would never point one of those at a human.  Giving an extra gun (or two, or ten) to people who don't shoot or who consistently practice good gun safety won't cause them to suddenly become killers.\n\nConversely, someone who does want to kill someone else really only needs one gun to get that done.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "ja7zmny"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7znr1",
                    "author": "Trucker2827",
                    "body": "Could you discuss what your methodology did differently than this study, which has the opposite conclusion as you?\n\nhttps://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409\n\n\u201cMethods. We conducted a negative binomial regression analysis of panel data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention\u2019s Web-Based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting Systems database on gun ownership and firearm homicide rates across all 50 states during 1981 to 2010. We determined fixed effects for year, accounted for clustering within states with generalized estimating equations, and controlled for potential state-level confounders.\n\nResults. **Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates** (incidence rate ratio\u2009=\u20091.009; 95% confidence interval\u2009=\u20091.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 95,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja89g4f",
                    "author": "pluralofjackinthebox",
                    "body": "At the very least this shows that \n\n> The only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set\n\nIs not true.\n\nYou might disagree with the methodology, but there are other ways to make the connection besides including suicides.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "ja7znr1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja7zvqe",
                    "author": "Only_Outcome4297",
                    "body": "\n\nThere is absolutely a correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths. Availability to guns + cultural factors = higher gun deaths.\n\nThere is also a very strong link between gun ownership and impulsive suicide. You can choose to group and segment the deaths however you want, but if you're analysing all deaths by firearms then excluding suicide would be wrong.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja88k38",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "When you consider how safe it is to own rope, do you consider strangulation deaths as \"rope violence\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ja7zvqe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja80ese",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": ">Similar analysis on the global level by nations yields\n\n[Similar analysis on a global level by nations yields an unquestionable link between gun ownership level and gun violence/death level.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41488081)",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja82atq",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Gun \"violence\" counts suicides. That is disingenuous and speaks directly to my point. It conflates criminal activities that harm others with activities that do not harm others.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": -10,
                    "parent_id": "ja80ese"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja80mr2",
                    "author": "Pastadseven",
                    "body": "> the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesnt show any strong correlation\n\nThis statement is absurd on its face. Of course gun homicide is strongly correlated with the presence of guns, would you be able to perpetrate a shooting without a gun?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 37,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8259k",
                    "author": "Skuuder",
                    "body": "You need to breathe oxygen in order to kill someone too, do you think gun violence MUST correlate with atmospheric oxygen saturation?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": -14,
                    "parent_id": "ja80mr2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja81vku",
                    "author": "Jebofkerbin",
                    "body": ">We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.\n\nSure but there are loads of steps to limit drug overdoses of over the counter drugs that have already been taken.\n\nThings like limiting the amount of the same drug you can buy from one store and switching from bottle medication to pallets with individually packaged tablets are things that have been done to limit drug overdoses.\n\nNo such steps have been taken to lower gun suicides.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja89hko",
                    "author": "ATLEMT",
                    "body": "I believe part of the reasoning for waiting periods was to prevent people buying a gun to kill themselves.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja81vku"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja82ukh",
                    "author": "Fit-Order-9468",
                    "body": ">However, this is disingenuous.\n\nBeing wrong about something doesn't make you a liar. Disagreeing with the meaning of \"violence\" doesn't make you a liar either. It just means you're wrong or disagreeing.\n\nThis is an unfair attack on someone's character. I'd imagine as a (presumably) gun-owner, you would be tired of being insulted and people making negative assumptions about you. Perhaps you should extend others courtesy that you would like?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 18,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja84f89",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "I don't own a gun. I never have. I am knowledgeable about firearms, and taught small arms use while in the military.   \n\n\nIt may be the case that some people are unaware of the lack of intellectual integrity needed to manipulate results in this way. But the people who are aware of this data -- which I believe includes the vast majority of gun-control advocates who parrot the stats continuously -- either know the manipulations being done or are so lacking in integrity as to bother checking. That may not make them disingenuous, but it certainly makes them less than honest interlocutors precisely because they are repeating information they have no reason to believe.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ja82ukh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja83552",
                    "author": "TallahasseWaffleHous",
                    "body": ">Similar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r2 of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm but has since been removed).\n\nThe reason that post was removed is because its analysis was wrong by a mile.  An upvoted comment in that  thread,\n\"This is low effort at misinformation.\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja84cgk",
                    "author": "Leucippus1",
                    "body": "There are two problems with this analysis, the first is you are wrong about the correlation.\n\n[https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409](https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409)[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/)\n\nThere is a difference between ropes and drugs and guns. The primary purpose of a gun is violence, that is what it is designed to do. So using a gun in a violent way is using it with its intended purpose, whereas killing with a rope or drugs is using those tools the way they were not intended. That is a difference worth exploring because it offers a meaningful reason why serious people say 'gun violence' but don't say 'rope violence'. In short, the latter is glib and unhelpful.\n\nThe history to this research is helpful to understand. The CDC funded a study years ago examining the impact of guns on overall health, the findings were so bad that the NRA lobbied the US congress to make such studies un-fundable under something called the Dickey Amendment. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey\\_Amendment#:\\~:text=The%20NRA%20responded%20by%20lobbying,Bill%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%201997.)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment#:~:text=The%20NRA%20responded%20by%20lobbying,Bill%20for%20Fiscal%20Year%201997.))\n\nAt the same time, there was someone named John Lott, an economist, who wrote an influential (and very essentially wrong) book called \"More Guns, Less Crime,\" which energized the nascent gun rights movement, you can write a whole essay just on that, which culminated in the disastrous *Heller* decision. Knowledgeable people knew MGLC was nonsense but since their research was hampered by federal policy there wasn't a lot of solid data they could present. So, MGLC became lore in a lot of people's heads.\n\nFast forward some years and private funds eventually made up for the lack of federal research dollars and we find that what people suspected all along was true. More guns = more gun crime.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja85ofp",
                    "author": "iamintheforest",
                    "body": "Firstly, people on the \"pro-gun-rights\" side simplify the stance significantly.  Most on the left believe that _reduction in firewarms access will reduce gun violence_.  This is very different than saying volumes of guns are the cause of gun violence.  What is disengenous is conflating part of an overall solution to gun violence with a diagnosis of the cause.  \n\nFurther, we absolutely call any death by drug part of the \"drug problem\" and when someone who is an addict kills themselves through any means we regard their addiction as part of the cause.  We also absolutely try to keep ropes away from people who are known to be suicidal.  \n\nTry looking at someone that is more \"genuine\" with regards to the position of the left, rather than fabricating the ideology to fit your political agenda.  Look at impacts of regulation and control in countries.  Look at it in states. Look at it by country.\n\nBut..EVEN THEN, your position is countered handily by most credible research that puts a bit more rigor into the analysis than your work:\n\nhttps://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8dgxm",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">Most on the left believe that  reduction in firewarms access will reduce gun violence. \n\n  \nBeing that (a) I'm on the left, and (b) I actually want to see reductions in firearm violence, I don't buy that statement.   \n\n\nThe majority response on the left from the recent attack on the Michigan State University shooting was to call for restrictions on types of weapons not used in the shooting.  Something that was seen up to the Office of the President.   \n\n\nThe number one call I continually hear from the left is a call to ban AR-15s, even though long arms are used in a statistically insignificant number of homicides.   \n\n\nAnd while I hear plenty on the left calling for policies that would impact gun violence -- from addressing poverty and income inequality to access to mental health care to addressing domestic violence issues. I see almost no one on the left connecting those policies to gun violence outside of groups l like the [The Liberal Gun Club](https://theliberalgunclub.com/). Members of which are routinely ostracized by the mainstream left for a general failure to adhere to orthodoxy when it comes to gun control.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja85ofp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja86upg",
                    "author": "Long-Rate-445",
                    "body": "all the states with the highest amount of gun ownership have the highest rates of homicide & gun violence in the US",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8eqvl",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Is  this true?\n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\\_of\\_U.S.\\_states\\_and\\_territories\\_by\\_intentional\\_homicide\\_rate](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/homicide_mortality/homicide.htm)  \n\n\nDC has a very low gun ownership rate, yet tops the charts. IL and MD are very restrictive states for gun laws. But sit in the top quintile.   \nME, NH, ID, VT, WY, UT, MN, KS, IA all have high gun ownership rates, yet are all well into the lowest quintile when it comes to homicide rates.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja86upg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja88fp5",
                    "author": "Beginning_Impress_99",
                    "body": "Suppose another person interprets the data and comes up with an opposite conclusion, and then they claim that you are being disingenuous. Who gets the last say on who is disingenuous?\n\n​\n\nAnd suppose there are somehow an objective answer of which is your stance. How would you know whether they are 'being ***intentionally*** *wrong but lying about it*'? You need to provide more evidence than that 'I am right' to prove that they are '***intentionally lying***' instead of just mistaken.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8iqfe",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "If someone did the math, then to say it is conclusive would be wrong. You can't look at 1+1=2 and say people could come to the conclusion that it's =3.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja88fp5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja896db",
                    "author": "pedrito77",
                    "body": "What about deadly police shootings? in america you have more than [1000](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) deadly police shootings a year,  in Spain we [had 7 in 3 years](https://www.elconfidencialdigital.com/articulo/seguridad/muertos-33-heridos-balance-uso-armas-fuego-policias-guardias-civiles-ultimos-anos/20210910133903274378.html) vs 3163 last 3 years in america,  that is x64 times more adjusted for population, america has x7 more people than Spain,  so you have to divide 3163 deadly police shootings in the last 3 years  vs 7 deaths in Spain and divided by 7 times more people and you have the 64, why??\n\nI TELL YOU why, because police mindset is \"anyone can have a weapon, better shoot first and ask questions later\". That is why. And that happens in any criminal interaction, that's why murders and deadly shootings are so high in america.\n\nI am tired of watching hundreds of videos that end up in a shooting by the police or by civilians that would have not ended that way in most of europe, and that is because of guns.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jhyw",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "A criminals actions shouldn't remove rights of the law abiding. It's ridiculous to suggest that because criminals do something bad others shouldn't have it.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja896db"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja89r83",
                    "author": "anonymous6789855433",
                    "body": "guns can't be used to bind or bundle",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8l978",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Are you suggesting guns have no legitimate uses outside of killing people?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja89r83"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8a6xq",
                    "author": "midnightking",
                    "body": " I haven't seen the post on r/dataisbeautiful but the top comments seem to be pointing out that the residuals are not normallly distributed, which is one of the core assumptions for a linear regression.\n\nThe peer reviewed data tells a different story. Forgive me but I am going to copy-paste  a previous post I made on US studies on gun ownership.\n\nAccording to a meta-annalysis, guns are linked to an increase [homicide victimization and an increase in odds of suicide](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24592495/) in the home. States with more gun ownership have higher [suicide rates](https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/sltb.12346) and [homicide](https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-02/Siegel%2C%20The%20Relationship%20Between%20Gun%20Ownership%20and%20Firearm%20Homicide%20Rates%20in%20the%20US%202013.pdf) (yes, overall [homicide](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/20/6/424.full.pdf?casa_token=RhDS8CQSyVUAAAAA:yoipsPprqbSx7xW2s7Gs0gBYTyMJd_SJx04qExhARzCr9Cv1gweRrflgBgF3_sjUeRIjFNrGylo)), net of multiple socio-economic, sociological and psychopathological factors. The idea that guns increase suicide odds is also very uncontroversial amongst gun researchers. In a survey of over 100 of them, [84%](https://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/injuryprev/23/4/221.full.pdf) agreed that gun ownership increased the odds of suicide in the home.Most importantly, people are more likely to use guns [to commit suicide](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) and guns are more deadly than other [methods](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/case-fatality/). Finally, guns owners [also weren't less likely to be injured](https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.03.029)  when being victimized. All in all it seems the costs of owning a gun often outweigh the gains of having them.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8apno",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "Gun suicide gets a focus due to its efficacy - most common suicide methods don\u2019t hold the fair heat candle to attempts with guns which succeed 97% of the time, drug ODs for example are between 15-25%. The only real exceptions is anchored drowning, as in tying yourself to a weight and pushing that in to drag you down in a deep body of water, that floats around 80% but it\u2019s harder to qualify given variance in exact methodology, from anchor used to method of attachment.\n\nAll that aside gun ownership is stupidly obviously related to gun crime and deaths as the latter requires the first. It\u2019s like saying peanut allergic reactions have nothing to do with peanuts.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8bw1h",
                    "author": "lighting214",
                    "body": "The data for gun ownership will always be unreliable when many states, especially high gun ownership states, do not require registration of firearms with any kind of law enforcement or centralized registry. There is no authoritative source in many states, much less at a national level, of how many guns there actually are in this country and who owns them.\n\nAs they say, garbage in, garbage out.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8edjg",
                    "author": "spacetimeguy",
                    "body": "This analysis has the exact same flaw as all those dietary studies that contradict each other.\n\nThere are far more than two variables that interact and influence each other.\n\nGrapefruit juice is harmless. So are most heart disease medications. But both in combination can be deadly.\n\nPeanut butter is harmless. So is dairy. But if the peanut butter was made in a culture that's lax about their ingredient standards, and trace amounts of peanut *mold* get into that peanut butter, it's still harmless, unless you also drink a lot of milk. Then it will give you liver cancer, even in kids. Source: The China Study by T. Colin Cambell\n\nThe point -- Guns are not a problem in a *homogenous* society. But if you consider the economic and racial diversity of a culture as a variable alongside gun proliferation, it tells a whole different story.\n\nWhich is the more achievable goal; eliminate private ownership of guns, or create a more inclusive, egalitarian and homogenous society?\n\nIf you want to keep your guns, you *must* work to eliminate racism, poverty and improve the education of this country. Like they say, freedom isn't free. You have a social responsibility to create the culture that makes guns a non-issue. You won't get it by creating more divisiveness.\n\nOr you can lose your guns. You decide. One or the other will eventually happen. It's just a matter of how much blood gets spilled between now and then.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8o17r",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">If you want to keep your guns, you must work to eliminate racism, poverty and improve the education of this country. Like they say, freedom isn't free. You have a social responsibility to create the culture that makes guns a non-issue. You won't get it by creating more divisiveness.  \n>  \n>Or you can lose your guns. You decide. One or the other will eventually happen. It's just a matter of how much blood gets spilled between now and then.\n\n  \nI don't disagree with this sentiment at all.   \n\n\nI'm repeatedly excoriated in r/progun for pointing out that by not working to address the root causes of violence, and in particular, gun violence, gun owners are demonstrating that they aren't socially responsible enough to retain the right to own arms.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja8edjg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8hj50",
                    "author": "kunkworks",
                    "body": "So, there is absolutely correlation between gun ownership, and gun violence in any capacity, criminal or not. I don't think anyone denies this.\n\nYour main contention is that gun ownership is the cause of criminal gun violence. Or put more simply, that owning a gun makes you violent.  \n\nThe other argument would be that carrying a gun may make one feel powerful over others, and perhaps you may want to yield that power, which may result in criminality.\n\nI think that physiologically, carrying a firearm could affect your mental state, and lead you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do.  But I couldn't say for sure.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8qqm4",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">I think that physiologically, carrying a firearm could affect your mental state, and lead you to do things you wouldn't otherwise do.\n\nI think this is absolutely a reasonable hypothesis to test out. And, interestingly, many researchers have.   \n\n\nThis study [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S107275151832074X](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S107275151832074X) for example found \"no statistically significant association between the liberalization of state level firearm carry legislation over the last 30 years and the rates of homicides or other violent crime.\"",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8hj50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jd2s",
                    "author": "U_Dun_Know_Who_I_Am",
                    "body": "Biggest flaw is ignoring other variables. \n\nCrime of any kind is higher in big cities. Big cities are more common in non-agricultural areas/states. #of guns owned is higher in agricultural and sparcly populated areas. \n\nSo going by # of guns rather than # of households with guns is the first big flaw. Second remove households with valid need for a gun like hunting or defense of self and property from animals.\n\nSecond, missed variable is that people can easily get a gun in one state and bring it to another where they own and carry it illegally.\n\nSo calculate it on the number of households with a gun solely for self defense against humans that was purchased and owned legally, vs number of gun homicides. That will give you the applicable stat for gun control.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jshu",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "> Second remove households with valid need for a gun like hunting or defense of self and property from animals.\n\nSo do people not have a right to defend themselves against criminals?",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "ja8jd2s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8jj03",
                    "author": "SecretRecipe",
                    "body": "You need to look at it big picture.  Compare gun ownership rates by country vs criminal gun deaths...  More guns in circulation = far higher odds that guns are going to be used in the commission of a crime period.    \n\n\nConversely gun ownership rates have zero correlation on safety.  For example some of the states with the highest gun ownership rates also have the highest rates of Rape.  So the whole \"personal protection\" angle is also a big fat myth.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9fb4n",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/119ya65/cmv_repeal_the_second_amendment/j9or6ts?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3\n\nThis comparison has been done. The USA with less strict gun control is not very high compared to developed nations when it comes to homicides or gun homicides even if the gun laws are strict in other places. You can point out singular places that are better, but there is no trend.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8jj03"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8kjtu",
                    "author": "zephillou",
                    "body": "Guns are tools. And they were designed/created explicitly as a weapon to effectively harm with a low level of physical effort from the user. So we could say that the intent of acquiring a gun is violence; whether for inflicting a threat of violence or to use as a defense from violence.\n\nIf the tool is widely available, commonly used and effective at what it was designed to do which is to shoot to harm (whether you be on the attacking or defending side of it), it will definitely be part of the equation of crime. And it will be more common in the culture to have it as a plausible option/outcome.\n\nIf it isn't as widespread or easy to acquire, it won't be used as much. Also laws around usage of said guns can make a difference as well. If it's to be used mainly for \"sport\" (hunting, marksmanship, etc) and not to be used against fellow humans, even for self-defense, where very severe sanctions would be applied if wrongfully used, you wouldn't see as much usage as it would fall more under the hobbyist category than the common \"kill or be killed\" type of deal. On the other end of the spectrum it would fall under the illegal use umbrella which doesn't represent the majority of the population.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8ktxh",
                    "author": "I_Did_your_mom420",
                    "body": "Nah this shit is wild",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8mgwd",
                    "author": "DumboRider",
                    "body": "Try again with world data, maybe compare America to Italy, Germany, or whatever. You Will be amazed on how significant the correlation is",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9buis",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "That's literally what was done. With world data.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8mgwd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja8p56t",
                    "author": "cherflugen",
                    "body": "To be as snarky as possible\u2026 if no one owned guns there would be no gun violence\u2026\n\nThe data has been very clear for a very long time. Turns out if you don\u2019t own a gun or otherwise have access to one (via someone or something that owns one) you can\u2019t commit gun related offenses\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9bs5g",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "To be as blunt as possible. No tyrannical government commits genocide on their people without disarming them first.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja8p56t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja91j65",
                    "author": "GizatiStudio",
                    "body": ">The only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.\n\nIs it disingenuous to count serious injury as gun violence? Asking for the guy in the wheelchair and his family whose whole lives were ruined.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9b4jj",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "Normally it's stated that \"____ number of people have died from gun violence.\" So no. It would not include this person you bring up. However, your attempt to make this an emotional debate true proved OPs point.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ja91j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja95u7q",
                    "author": "NuncErgoFacite",
                    "body": "You are positing two theories and it is making any meaningful argument in text highly difficult.\n\n1) Gun ownership is not causal to gun violence.\n\n2) People who maintain that there is a causal link are disingenuous (disingenuous is defined as not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does). So, you are politely implying willful deception on their part.\n\nTo the second point, I have to ask \"why?\". What is the motivation here? Is it some vague notion of being un-American (I am assuming this is an america located debate) or seizing power? Why would half of your country's population seek to lower gun availability and lie about why they are doing it?\n\nMore honestly, \"How?\" How would 150,000,000 people keep their talking points straight as to them lying about why they want to lower gun access? Seems unlikely.\n\nI have heard most of the talking points over the years, and they sound either emotional or conspiratorial. And not conspiracy in terms of \"the government is controlling us through chem trails\"; rather a flavor of \"unpatriotic\" or anti-patriotism\".\n\n​\n\nTo the first point, [HERE](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) is a breakdown you missed. Further, your assertion that 0.079 is insignificant is an opinion, but hardly empirical fact. You are using an epidemiology assessment tool that, while applied for various reasons to firearm deaths, is generally used to apply numbers to diseases which affect all people, everywhere. \n\nHowever, cancer, heart attack, high blood pressure, the flu, H1N1, etc. are not preventable morbidities. They are treatable, but not preventable. Motor vehicle deaths are preventable. We don't accept the cost (ie - not driving cars), but it is wholly preventable in a way that cancer is not.\n\nAssault is generally considered unpreventable. There are society level strategies to lower or raise the number: employment rates, access to food, water, and health care, education completion, child care, elder care, employment options, income, inflation, etc. But even in a utopian situation for all the above factors, it is thought that human nature will lead to some level of assault.\n\nBut gun related violence falls into the second category with motor vehicle related deaths. We could, wholly and completely, make gun rated violence go away by removing all the guns in the private sector. Will some people continue to smuggle and black market guns into the private sector, yes - but that is not the point here. Should we do it - also not the point here. The point is that we (society) could make it happen over the course of 50-100 years. Make it so untenable to own a firearm of any kind that finding one would be like finding a switchblade today in great-grandpa's trunk upstairs. An oddity.\n\nWe have no recourse in the realm of heart attacks and strokes. Take away all the saturated fat in the world, and some people are still going to get elected. Cancer? Same problem. That is just the real world.\n\nSo, the two concepts of gun mortality and cancer mortality are irreconcilable goods. Such regressions are used for epidemiologic purposes because it is easier to talk about the numbers as given. But like other sociologic data formats, there are significant limitations.\n\n​\n\nMoving on, in the first point. According to your web link Texas and Florida have the most fire arms in the private sector. And Delaware and Rhode island have the least. I would be interested in seeing a comparison of gun related violence between those four states. Not as a proof, but rather as a proof of concept. If Delaware and RI are firmly lower in gun related incidents than Texas or FL - I think your theory may not hold water. The per capita list to the right would make for a similar comparison, no?\n\n​\n\nThat's all I have. Hope it helps. Cheers!",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9c8vy",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">Gun ownership is not causal to gun violence.\n\nNope. I'm arguing that gun ownership is not causal to gun crime.   \n\n\n\"Gun violence\" is a term used primarily by gun control advocates intentionally chosen to obfuscate the discussion by combining homicide and suicide into a single category.   \n\n\n>People who maintain that there is a causal link are disingenuous (disingenuous is defined as not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does). So, you are politely implying willful deception on their part.\n\nPeople who seek to imply that there is a causal link between gun ownership and public safety by using the analysis between gun ownership and gun violence are disingenuous because suicide is not a public safety risk.   \n\n\nIn my OP, I argue that there is wilful deception because they know the distinctions between these categories. They know that their analysis fails if gun homicides alone are used. So therefore, they seek to deceive through obfuscation to push a political agenda that is unproven and without analytical support, and at worst, they know it will not work.   \n\n\nI have since given a delta for changing my view that this applies to people in general. I am now willing to limit this view to those who are pushing the agenda and/or doing the analysis; but that the nuance and complexity of the issue as well as the general lack of knowledge of statistics and research methods means that the average person can not be being said to be disingenuous. \n\n​\n\n>We could, wholly and completely, make gun rated violence go away by removing all the guns in the private sector. Will some people continue to smuggle and black market guns into the private sector, yes - but that is not the point here\n\n​\n\nIt is illegal for anyone at all in the private sector to own guns in Brunei, but they have a firearm homicide rate of 0.5 per 100,000. The same is true of Cambodia, whose firearm homicide rate is 3.4 per 100,000. Comoros, 12.2. Eritrea 17.8. Fiji 2.8. Guinea-Bissau 20.2. Maldives 1.6. Seychelles 8.3. Solomon Islands 3.7. Somalia 1.5 (but doesn't count political violence as homicides it seems). Timor-Leste 6.9.   \n\n\nTotal bans of private sector firearms doesn't actually have a particularly good record for limiting firearm homicides around the world.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja95u7q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9e2hn",
                    "author": "ajtallone",
                    "body": "You need to have a gun in order to murder someone with a gun\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9hx73",
                    "author": "KikiYuyu",
                    "body": "My opinion on guns isn't based on rates or statistics. I just know that many mass shootings were done with legally owned guns, that's enough for me to see that as a big problem. \n\nIf I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but there's nothing disingenuous about my stance on this.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9kc40",
                    "author": "babypizza22",
                    "body": "That's not a very thorough opinion though. That's like saying I know most drunk driving accidents happen by people with legal drivers license.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ja9hx73"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9jt1n",
                    "author": "PhoenixxFeathers",
                    "body": "It is not mistaken or disingenuous to say guns need to be present for people to use guns violently - that is an inescapable fact.  \n\nIf we accept the fact that there is no perfect system to control who has a gun, then it logically follows that the availability of guns for legal use increases the prevalence of guns obtained illegally.  In the case of gun violence in countries with strict gun control or outright bans, the guns either trace back to countries with high availability or to the government controlled supply (as is the case with Venezuela), but the point remains - availability of guns for legal use necessarily must increase availability for illegal use.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ja9ld1n",
                    "author": "AwardOk1534",
                    "body": "Multi prong problem.  Responsible ownership isn\u2019t one of the problem prongs.  Unfortunately, which happens often, it\u2019s the irresponsible that get the attention.  That is probably where the problem solving should lie.  Take out the responsible variable & focus on what\u2019s left\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11dduj8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The data has been clear for a very long time, the relationship between guns and gun homicides doesn't show any strong correlation.\n\nI have personally taken the cause of death data from [https://wonder.cdc.gov/](https://wonder.cdc.gov/), grouping results by year, then state, and selecting the cause of death to be Homicide, Firearm. I then matched that data up to the gun-ownership per capita by state data from the ATF as reported by Hunting Mark ([https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/](https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/)).\n\nDoing a standard correlation analysis between the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 and the per-capita rate of gun ownership gives an r^(2) value of 0.079, which is no meaningful correlation.\n\nSimilar analysis on the global level by nations yields an r^(2) of 0.02 (this used to be on r/dataisbeutiful at [https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/11d1tzm) but has since been removed).\n\nThe only way to make the association between gun ownership rates and gun violence is to include suicide by guns in the data set. However, this is disingenuous. We don't count suicide by hanging as \"rope violence\" and include it with criminal acts when discussing strangulation violence.  We don't count suicides by overdosing as \"drug violence\" etc.",
                    "date": "2023-02-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Those who attribute gun ownership rates as the cause of the problem of gun violence in terms of criminal gun deaths are not merely mistaken; they are disingenuous",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11dduj8/cmv_those_who_attribute_gun_ownership_rates_as/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jajzo2z",
                    "author": "Tetepupukaka53",
                    "body": "Actually, the common, collectivist premise of Leftwing philosophies has more to do with mass shootings than gun ownership.\n\nMass violence would decrease more if *THAT* was eliminated, as opposed to gun ownership.\n\nBut then, \"banning\" collectivism is a perfectly *collectivist* thing to do. . .",
                    "date": "2023-03-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11dduj8"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11h59o9",
                "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                "date": "2023-03-03",
                "score": 1519,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jarws5m",
                "author": "AlphaBetaSigmaNerd",
                "body": "This is more an argument to not include any identifying personal information in your social media accounts than it is to delete them. Just because you delete your reddit account doesn't mean the information you posted is gone",
                "date": "2023-03-03",
                "score": 77,
                "parent_id": "11h59o9"
            },
            {
                "id": "jarxmrz",
                "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                "body": "\u0394\n\nEveryone's basically saying the same thing, but I didn't think of it so I'm going to delta all these comments then stop responding. Thank you all!",
                "date": "2023-03-03",
                "score": 24,
                "parent_id": "jarws5m"
            },
            {
                "id": "jarxos1",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AlphaBetaSigmaNerd ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AlphaBetaSigmaNerd)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-03-03",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "jarxmrz"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jarvk8p",
                    "author": "WhiteWolf3117",
                    "body": "There exists sites which archive every single thing you\u2019ve said and posted, and while deleting may present another obstacle, it absolutely does not get rid of the content in any way, shape, or form. The actor Simu Liu, who rose to fame for playing Shang Chi, accidentally doxxed himself on his old, now deleted reddit account and after the film came out, people still found out and dragged him a bit.\n\nI think the main thing is that, so long as you haven\u2019t divulged personal information, it doesn\u2019t really matter whether or not the account is deleted.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 725,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jarwdx3",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "So what you're suggesting is that the problem is more about how closely/easily you can relate the account to yourself, not its existence in general?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 236,
                    "parent_id": "jarvk8p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jarwb5k",
                    "author": "EmrickFe",
                    "body": "You should find your purpose comrade. My purpose on earth is to redpill people. I would even redpill my boss if i get the chance. I can't hide or delete my Reddit. It is for the world to see.\n\nhttps://youtu.be/wz-7H70teSo",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jarx88x",
                    "author": "eggs-benedryl",
                    "body": "Seeing your post history, you're definitely not hiding anything.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jarwb5k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaryg6u",
                    "author": "psyclopsus",
                    "body": "I delete so many of my own comments before posting because of this concern",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasavii",
                    "author": "TheExter",
                    "body": "didn't delete them fast enough it seems\n\n[one of them was featured in a buzzfeed article](https://www.buzzfeed.com/sydrobinson1/unwritten-life-rules)\n\nThey're on to you",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jaryg6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaryxzk",
                    "author": "LordMarcel",
                    "body": "My Reddit account is one of the primary causes of my \"fame\" (if you want to call 110k subs on YT fame) and I get tagged regularly when people link a video of mine somewhere.\n\nSure, there is a chance that at some point in the future someone will dig up that I said some potentially controversial stuff, but so what? I livestream 6 hours a week and talk about all kinds of crap there too, and that's all archived as well.\n\nI'm not worried since it's not like I'm posting something super controversial like pro-Trump commentary or NFT stuff anyway. The small chance that someone will dig up something mildly controversial is completely overshadowed by the large amounts of benefits this account gives me.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jarzhn2",
                    "author": "tengripop",
                    "body": "I agree that there's a risk, but a risk that could be worth risking in some situations or in pursuit of some goals.\n\nHere's an example I'd give: I could want to undermine 'public backlash' as a disincentive to sincerely express what one thinks. In that case, I may actively invite public backlash.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jas0ajy",
                    "author": "RayceManyon",
                    "body": "You should totally delete your reddit account. You know, just to be safe.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jas1b90",
                    "author": "ailish",
                    "body": "Nothing on the internet is ever gone forever. You can delete your reddit account, but your posts will always be out there. If, say, you became a high level politician, it would only take a tech saavy person to find the posts. You'd be screwed if you were posting racist or sexist material.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jas33j7",
                    "author": "Thisisthatguy99",
                    "body": "I think your view is to limited. And maybe you did that to get a ride out of people here. But in the event that an average person gets some fame\u2026 ANY social media type account, down to YouTube, can be used to dig up dirt and slander you. So just deleting Reddit, won\u2019t be enough. \n\n\u201cThis person once watched a YouTube video connected to a channel who has a white supremacy editor, this person must have matching beliefs \u201c\n\nOn top of the fact that there are so many different social media accounts like this that a person can be attached to and it\u2019s not always easy to delete them all. There are many site, or 3rd party groups, that record and archive that data, and don\u2019t have the requirements for court orders to get to the data that many of the bigger or main companies have. All you need is money and you can use them to find out what someone\u2019s social media said 10 years after they deleted it. \n\nThe better idea is to either not get into social media to begin with, or know and accept that anything you do online can now be followed, nothing is anonymous anymore, so just be as careful online as you would in any public situation.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jas6yh8",
                    "author": "An-Okay-Alternative",
                    "body": "Twitter is full of people with public notoriety detailing their thoughts on a daily basis. Only a small fraction have ever seen tangible personal or professional damages as a result, and it's always something particularly extreme or politically charged. I don't think it's as difficult as you suggest sticking to uncontroversial topics.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasrsh2",
                    "author": "RealLameUserName",
                    "body": "Ya, I think the idea that you'll piss off the wrong person on the internet who will then dox you and ruin your life isn't that common. That's not saying it doesn't happen as I'm sure somebody could figure out who I was if they spent enough time on my account and cross referenced my comments with each other but thats way too much work to ruin the life of a nobody. Unless you're super famous, then you should be fine with saying that you live in Colorado and work as an engineer or somethin",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jas6yh8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jas71bi",
                    "author": "londonschmundon",
                    "body": "Myself and several other people I work with, are in the entertainment industry (above the line) and we don't even know each other's reddit names.  You wouldn't have heard of me unless you're a big fan of single camera comedies, but you'd have absolutely heard of at least a couple of my coworkers.  All this to say, with enough obfuscation anyone here comment at will.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jas9r6o",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "What do you think they're gonna find?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasa481",
                    "author": "smokeyphil",
                    "body": "As long as this site is around (and others like it) [https://www.unddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv\\_you\\_should\\_delete\\_your\\_reddit\\_account\\_if\\_you/](https://www.unddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/) it wont matter it can be recovered.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasa56p",
                    "author": "Traditional_Lead_97",
                    "body": "Wait, can people look at the stuff i saved ? Is it public?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaskryc",
                    "author": "TheOutspokenYam",
                    "body": "I'm looking at it right now. And holy fuck, sir. Holy fuck.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "jasa56p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jascvmb",
                    "author": "cirezaru",
                    "body": "Info: why reddit in particular? Why not all social media accounts?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasf82v",
                    "author": "Dakrys",
                    "body": "I'd say it's probably a good idea whether you have notoriety or not, like job applications",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasflr6",
                    "author": "DakianDelomast",
                    "body": "Rick Astley would like a word.\n\nThere's several people that maintain active Reddit accounts and it doesn't seem to have done them any damage. Authors that do AMAs, or actors that still bump around on the site all maintain a healthy interaction with the community. I think if done right, keeping a Reddit account open could benefit your public exposure and image. People will find reasons to be mad about anything. Having an active account may stem that a little.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jashgqd",
                    "author": "Vuelhering",
                    "body": "You just made my brain rickroll me, bastard.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jasflr6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jashne9",
                    "author": "ConsiderationSuch844",
                    "body": "Let them find it, it'll only give me a reason to drag them to hell with me",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasogjm",
                    "author": "Butter_Toe",
                    "body": "Reddit us for such people. Whatchutalkinbout?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaspaml",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": "I think it depends on how well your public persona matches your reddit persona. I'm pretty careful to make sure my two identities remain separate, because at present I work in an executive level at a Fortune 500 company, and I'm pretty frank about my sexuality, political views, and past drug use on reddit -- all topics that I am far less likely to discuss freely in a professional environment.\n\nWith that said, were I to move on (e.g., into teaching, which I've considered as a retirement job years down the line), there's nothing I've shared here that I'd be too uncomfortable with folks seeing.\n\nEither way, I think your POV is off-base -- it's really a reason to be careful to ensure your reddit identity *remains* anonymous, which is something many high profile folks already do.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasqafg",
                    "author": "louloublueyes20",
                    "body": "Why not write under a different name? Truthfully, I feel like it doesn't matter there will always be people that don't like one's views or choices etc. I don't think that should be a reason to make you second guess what you want to do or even deleteyour account. Honestly, it should be expected. Because that is what people do. You also have a choice on how you can react to them. Don't worry about what if in a negative way. Think about the difference you could make. ( hopefully a positive one.)",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jass8by",
                    "author": "PhuckBigMoney",
                    "body": "I'll keep that in mind for my run for the presidency.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jasuvuw",
                    "author": "Libertarian_Values",
                    "body": "I agree. I will definitely delete my account when I get a job.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaswe6i",
                    "author": "oldrocketscientist",
                    "body": "True.  Most people are either unaware of how much data is collected on each of us as individuals or na\u00efvely believe their lives are not interesting enough to be \u201cspied upon\u201d.  Every electronic tidbit is captured for possible future use both commercially and for law enforcement.  The profiles built from geo tracking alone are mind blowing.  It is real yet here we are like lambs to the slaughter",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaszmk9",
                    "author": "InteractionOne3363",
                    "body": "Absolutely correct. And that does not apply only to Reddit but every other social media account. Seems like the only way out is, well, out\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat26r3",
                    "author": "GB819",
                    "body": "Just don't post under your real name.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat3jot",
                    "author": "Dev_Sniper",
                    "body": "Well\u2026 I mean\u2026 it depends. Is that account \u201etraceable\u201c? If no one is able to find out you\u2018re the one posting on that account you\u2018re safe. But getting that level of security requires being really careful when it comes to personal details.\nSo yeah\u2026 it\u2018s probably a good idea to restart every public account although it\u2018s hard because\u2026 how would you do that on let\u2018s say\u2026 instagram. Most celebrities use instagram. If you\u2018re telling everyone you\u2018re going to create a new account they could save things that might cause issues in a few years. If you don\u2018t tell them they won\u2018t know what happened (bad idea). So you would have to decrease your public visibility & people would question why you deleted that account. And sure\u2026 what could be so bad about an instagram profile. It\u2018s mostly flex etc. anyways (although stories etc. have been used for beefs, opinions, \u2026). But twitter or facebook etc.? People get in trouble all the time because some random person found a 10 year old tweet and that shit went viral. So you would need to clear your twitter profile as well. But at that point someone might have already saved the post. So the only way to avoid that is NEVER posting any opinion on anything unless you\u2018re 100% anonymous. And that really sucks. And everyone would need to do that because you might not want to be famous but it could happen in the future so you should be prepared. And at that point social media apart from messaging apps is kinda pointless (apart from posting your ass, car, watch, home, child or vacation on instagram and uploading tetris let\u2018s plays on youtube)",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat78sk",
                    "author": "womaneatingsomecake",
                    "body": "No. I really don't care what people see me say and comment. If it's brought up, ill either defend it, or explain if my views have changed.\n\nThere also should be no way for anyone, even my friends, to know I have this reddit account.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat7qe6",
                    "author": "Nickidewbear",
                    "body": "People with public notoriety are people just like anybody else. Why on Earth should they act like they\u2019re better than anybody by not having Reddit accounts especially if they had them beforehand?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat8cii",
                    "author": "StinkieBritches",
                    "body": "Lol, nobody but my husband and my mom give a shit about me, so I'm not worried about my anonymous little reddit profile.\n\nAnyway, as long as you're not a public figure or posting personal information, there isn't a lot more to worry about now than there was last week.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat8wie",
                    "author": "mweaver691",
                    "body": "Or when you get your notary public",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jat9sog",
                    "author": "klparrot",
                    "body": "Depends how easily it can be associated with your real identity, relative to the incentive for someone to try to do so.\n\nAlso, you don't have to care about the people who would try to smear you no matter what; if you don't give them anything, they'll just make shit up. Consider the smear a given, and then consider whether you want average people to be able to read what you think. In most cases, that body of writing will make you more immune to smears, by more solidly establishing your character to which the accusation doesn't fit, and it will also increase readers' parasocial connection to you, which can be valuable. Not to say that's necessarily what you want, but it can be.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatdbb9",
                    "author": "local_meme_dealer45",
                    "body": "Not just reddit, all social media",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatfcwp",
                    "author": "UserNameNotOnList",
                    "body": "I have a question that applies to a lot of the posts here, as well as to OPs point.\n\nMany people are saying some version of, \"But if you don't post anything personally verifiable, it will be very difficult for anyone to link **you** to that account.\" Okay, but...\n\nReddit has the data to link you to that account. They know my email connected to this account. So if UserNameNotOnList gets famous, someone working at Reddit or a clever hacker might be able to find out who I really am.\n\nI suppose one could also create a throwaway email account, then use that to create their Reddit account. But if you're doing that, then you probably know you're trying/likely to become famous -- so maybe just don't post anything online that you don't want as part of your \"famous\" image.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatfsp4",
                    "author": "dmo99",
                    "body": "Reddit is best at this. If you stay true to yourself. Then fuck what anyone else thinks. You will never please everyone",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatk97x",
                    "author": "convivialism",
                    "body": "Why wouldn't I want the public to see that I'm based and have correct opinions about everything?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatkpsz",
                    "author": "KariRose31",
                    "body": "What should happen, is people shouldn't use opinions against others just because they don't agree with it.\nAnd we should be able to fight against it and the moderators should look at it and be like \"But this doesn't go against standards\" and ignore it.\n\nIts not considered \"spreading hate\" just because you don't agree with whatever is said. UNLESS they are actually stating a hateful comment.\nSomeone saying they won't use pronouns, isnt hate speech.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaw4hxn",
                    "author": "maddElynn_n-L",
                    "body": "I know you most likely won\u2019t care, but since I fancy myself a person of integrity, I had to\u2014\n\nThat\u2019s what\u2019s funny about living in a society\u2026 whether institutional or matters attributed to our supposed inherent \u2018animal instincts,\u2019 unless you can challenge your thinking and perspective/ perception\u2014 you wouldn\u2019t know what is or isn\u2019t spreading hate. You may try to equivocate or excuse digressive or transgressive attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors as not being serious, a joke, or being uneducated/ unexposed, but that\u2019s where these harmful notions take root and creates people who use a particular ideology (\u2018isms\u2019) to validate their bigoted and prejudiced mental frameworks. \n\nIt's like the reactionary response of being more offended by, or for someone, when that someone is being called or accused of: a message or action that is inherently racist or sexist\u2014 possibly a rapist. To respond to and take offense to being called something that\u2019s being attributed to a set of behaviors and actions is reprehensible when it leaves no room for that person to ask, \u201cam I, racist,\u201d or, \u201cis what I\u2019ve done sexist?\u201d \n\nTo feel entitled to treat others how you see fit is not some dunk on the Liberals or sticking it to woke people... It's being proud of being intolerant for the sake of being intolerant. \u201cYou don\u2019t get to pick and choose when you\u2019re being an asshole; you just have to maintain enough dignity and grace to stop spewing shit\u201d\u2014 to be frank. \n\nWhy is stating you're not using pronouns hate speech? Because it's speech meant to be hateful or communicate your refusal to acknowledge a transperson\u2019s humanity. Not that it's bad enough there are attitudes like this or states passing laws aimed at criminalizing/ affirming the trans-experience\u2014 making the transperson disappear will be too easy.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jatkpsz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatneyd",
                    "author": "FoolishDog1117",
                    "body": "I dunno dude I'm doing exactly this right now.  Should I be worried maybe?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatny0s",
                    "author": "3imaginaryboyss",
                    "body": "As long as you never tell another soul what your reddit account is, no one will know it\u2019s you.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatqqlf",
                    "author": "hornwort",
                    "body": ">if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger people politically\n\nSince OP is done responding, the sub is now accepting bets as to whether the book is on the denial of systemic racism, the plurality of gender, or the Holocaust.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatt3mj",
                    "author": "kukukachu_burr",
                    "body": "Cart before horse. There are actual people available for hire to clean your online presence. Chill out and just employ one when the time comes.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatuke2",
                    "author": "HuhItsAllGooey",
                    "body": "Some of us don't have anything to hide. Some of us do lol.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jatwwjk",
                    "author": "ropeknot",
                    "body": "So, according to your standards;  if you get praised by me then you should be erased if you and I agree and start a conversation with everyone ???\n\n​\n\nW T A F ?\n\n​\n\nAm I missing something here ?",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jau3384",
                    "author": "jfchops2",
                    "body": "I'm not going to change your view because I agree with it.\n\nQuick story to show why you are correct. In 2019, my employer at the time called me into a meeting with the internal police and gave me no details what it was about. I knew *for a fact* that I had done nothing wrong in my time working there and was a great employee. I figured it was either to ask me questions about a matter I may have witnessed or a misunderstanding. \n\nI get to the meeting, the ER person introduces herself, and then she asks me if I am reddit user \"xxxxx\" (account deleted after this all happened). Even more confused, I say yes. She then reads a comment I made recently (at the time) and asked if it was me. It was a rather benign joke about Elizabeth Warren, who is a politician I do not like, judge how relevant that is for yourself, and I said yes. She then started reading some comments about difficult customers of the company that weren't exactly worded nicely and asked if they were also mine. I said I wasn't sure, because I had no recollection of any of them. She pressed, and I landed on \"this is my account, so I probably made these comments, but I don't remember them and you can clearly see I don't talk like that anymore. How do I make this right and move on?\" It blew over pretty quickly from there.\n\nShe gave me the name of the person who reported me because part of the process was finding out if the person had any reason to retaliate against me. I had never heard the guy's name in my life. I only know what I heard in that meeting and not the full details of the \"investigation,\" but my read is someone saw a comment I made that they didn't like and they went back *6+ years* in my comment history to find something they could use against me and reported it to my employer.\n\nI started at that company in high school and made some stupid comments on this website about customers there when I was young, dumb, and not looking at them as a career. The next six years happened and suddenly I'm still there with a career, being questioned about the things I said online when I was 18.\n\nMoral of the story is, don't say things online you wouldn't say in person. And if you do, don't leave it there for everyone to see because even if it seems impossible, someone might find it and make you answer for it. You're not going to remember a random reddit comment you make tonight in six years, but it's still there for anyone to find.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaujm0b",
                    "author": "HaylingZar1996",
                    "body": "I disagree - you shouldn\u2019t simply delete your Reddit account, you should first overwrite every post and comment you\u2019ve ever made with garbage / blank space. This means if people use an archive trawler to look at your history, it\u2019s more likely that they won\u2019t be able to find what they want. Of course, if one is determined enough, they WILL be able to find the information.  Once your information is on the internet, it IS there forever and there\u2019s nothing you can do about that. So my response to your main point is that irrespective of if you ever expect to be any kind of public figure, you should be extremely careful about everything you post online. There\u2019s countless examples of shit from people\u2019s past being dug back up and taken out of context to cause them harm.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaujwdn",
                    "author": "VStramennio1986",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve been seriously thinking about deleting mine. Mainly because all the negativity and how ugly people are to each other. However, after reading this\u2026I\u2019m convinced of yet another reason to delete this account.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaulcbj",
                    "author": "VivaVeracity",
                    "body": "All your personal data is stored somewhere else, even if you delete Reddit; Instagram, Snapchat or Facebook will share your personal info to someone else",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaun30w",
                    "author": "writingonthefall",
                    "body": "Advocating for self censorship is politically dangerous. You are lying down and accepting an assault on free speech. \n\nIt is bad enough that corporations and the government are enforcing it. Now regular people participate both by snitching and self censoring. \n\nYou are normalizing one of the worst aspects of our culture. If you are risk averse do what you must. But pushing the idea that everyone should is unethical.",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaup7fj",
                    "author": "RoundCollection4196",
                    "body": "Public notoriety isn't really an issue. No one is going to find out brie larson's reddit unless she explicitly leaks that information. In fact few people ever need to worry about their post history being revealed.\n\nThe only people that need to worry are high level politicians and businessmen who are at constant risk of blackmail as well as anyone applying for a high level security clearance.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jauthi8",
                    "author": "Legitimate_Walrus780",
                    "body": "While I do understand what you're saying, it's not an always scenario. Say someone just was posting asking for advice in a sports game sub, no one can weaponise that well. Even if you've said something that could be weaponised, really not a big reason to hide it unless you were planning a war crime.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jauum4t",
                    "author": "PostingLoudly",
                    "body": "It's really funny I'm seeing this right now. I'm about to start a job as a radio DJ in... An unnamed city. I feel like this might be a problem for me.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jauvcgj",
                    "author": "Frequent_Character_3",
                    "body": "if you havent posted any information you could be found out with, then i dont think you would need to delete it because nobody would know.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jav178u",
                    "author": "tek9jansen",
                    "body": "wayback machine \n\n​\n\nbut also yeah duh id hate for all of my drunk shitposts to matter but then i never say anything i wouldnt back sober so eh",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jav7v90",
                    "author": "WhatAmIDoingHere05",
                    "body": "So I used to run a Supporters Group for one of the largest football clubs in the world, in the city which I reside in. I was able to leverage both my notoriety in the local sports community, my notoriety in the culture with the club I support, and help bring in supporters of this football club to matchday events. As a result, a lot of supporters of this club, that live in my city, found my Reddit profile. Did I care if people know my Reddit handle? No. Do I care if said supporters comb through my past posts? Nope. I come from the mindset that I have zero to hide.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "javd75y",
                    "author": "Iliveforballz",
                    "body": "Paranoia",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "javhvyz",
                    "author": "NaughtyForYou98",
                    "body": "https://onlyfans.com/naughtyforyou98",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "javjak7",
                    "author": "ElderberryNo1936",
                    "body": "Mimicry\u2026appear poisonous, that way you know the type of enemy before they know you. It\u2019s like cornering the market. I don\u2019t do delta stuff\u2026because I\u2019m very upfront about my self evident truths. It\u2019s not my responsibility to make sure anyone understands my words, Often it doesn\u2019t change anything, but on the contrary I like my thoughts being challenged. Often I don\u2019t want everyone understanding, it gets misconstrued worse than if I was just hard to read. So I write a lot of wordy posts. In general thieves are by nature very lazy, not much else, and hate being caught in a parking lot by someone they stole from.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "javmq8s",
                    "author": "epanek",
                    "body": "President ponies deleted his Reddit account!  What was he hiding?!  Let\u2019s discuss.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaw625o",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "Unfortunately, by the time you think of cleaning up your image, the ship has already sailed.  That database of your thoughts and responses is archived and available, whether you delete your account or no.  \n\nI can still find things online that I posted to USENET in 1990.  Some of them are embarrassing to me now -- I was a lot younger then.  But they're part of the historical record.  There's not really any such thing as a life lived both online and privately, I'm sorry to say.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaw64qr",
                    "author": "The_Actual_Pope",
                    "body": "Nobody needs to worry about their Reddit account being matched with their real identity, because that probably happened already.\n\n* Right now, stylometric analysis of an anonymous writing sample can be matched with it's author with up to 95% accuracy. There is [a lot of research](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/authorship-attribution) going into the field at the moment. The tech is already being used to catch plagiarists.\n* Almost everyone posting anonymously on places like Reddit & Twitter also posts under their real name somewhere, like on Facebook, blogs, papers for their studies, etc. It is a safe assumption that posts in all public locations are being archived in some way. \n* There are many constantly growing AI applications like ChatGPT that do nothing all day but scrape, digest, and analyze samples of writing in order to build their databases. There is big money in this tech.\n\nOdds are at least one application has scraped everyone's anonymous postings. Odds are most of those applications are running stylometric analysis, because being able to match a particular style is so important. Never mind how valuable those connections can be for advertising, which already collects ridiculous amounts of data on all of us. The question is not \"Will this happen?\" but \"When will someone capitalize on it and when will it leak?\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaw7pxe",
                    "author": "TheLastEmoKid",
                    "body": "Here's my two cents on this issue.   Every millenial has been online since they were teens and every gen z has been online since they were kids.  Literally everyone is an idiot during those times.  \n\nWe're going to run into a situation where there are one of two possibilities - either we continue to witch hunt people for things they did online 10+ years ago, and basically run society off those who didn't, or we have to finally accept as a society that people can and do grow and not really worry about it.\n\nOf course there are some things that are either unforgivable or atleast should have more intense evidence of change, but it's unreasonable to me to think you should be damned forever for what you posted at 15",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11h59o9",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": " Even  if you haven't said or posted anything problematic or that would be  hugely controversial, your detailed listing of thoughts, likes/dislikes,  hobbies, political and religious leanings can easily be used as weapons  by people who want to smear or otherwise tear you down.\n\nFor  example, if I'm writing a book that might be controversial and trigger  people politically, having a deep profile of information that people can  weaponize against you is risky. For example, looking at my profile, the  stuff I've saved, said, posted, gives a pretty clear view of my private  life, thoughts etc.\n\nTL;DR - A  reddit profile, no matter how tame you think it is, presents far too  much risk to leave in place if you expect to get a large amount of  public attention in the near future.\n\nI don't want to delete, my account, but I really can't see how leaving it is a safe thing to do so CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-03-03",
                    "score": 1519,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: you should delete your Reddit account if you get any measure of public notoriety",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11h59o9/cmv_you_should_delete_your_reddit_account_if_you/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jawht88",
                    "author": "clavicle524",
                    "body": "The problem is if you delete your Reddit account, you will lose all public praise for the good things you did with the account. I don't have a problem with a person deleting their account but once you delete your account, there's no going back. Plus they say you can't please everyone. Even if you choose to state a problematic opinion, there may still be people defending you. Plus, a Reddit account is anonymous, and as long as you don't reveal too personal information, it's fine.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11h59o9"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11id0v4",
                "author": "OkSnow9309",
                "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                "date": "2023-03-04",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jaxnav3",
                "author": "canadatrasher",
                "body": "I mean the comparison makes perfect if i also want to heavily reduce car reliance and number of cars in the society. \n\nCome join us at /r/fuckcars",
                "date": "2023-03-04",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "11id0v4"
            },
            {
                "id": "jaxnkbi",
                "author": "OkSnow9309",
                "body": "!delta I was waiting for this argument lol. I knew one of you guys was gonna pop in here. That\u2019s really the only way it makes sense to me. If you\u2019re in favor of also regulated cars as well and you\u2019re using it as an analogy to regulate both",
                "date": "2023-03-04",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jaxnav3"
            },
            {
                "id": "jaxnora",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/canadatrasher ([11\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/canadatrasher)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-03-04",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jaxnkbi"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxjavu",
                    "author": "A88_I99",
                    "body": "What's wrong with people using analogies?",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxjg3j",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "My cmv doesn\u2019t say that it\u2019s wrong to use analogies. It\u2019s saying why I believe that particular analogy doesn\u2019t benefit either \u201cside\u201d of the mainstream gun debate.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jaxjavu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxjnru",
                    "author": "ILoveLampRon",
                    "body": "People aren't driving into schools and supermarkets and churches and running over people, are they?",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxjrcp",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "How does that relate to this analogy ?",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jaxjnru"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxk9dq",
                    "author": "howlin",
                    "body": "> If you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way\n\nIf you're partisan, I don't think anyone is going to change your mind much.  The pro-gun crowd is fanatically set in their stance and essentially refuse to consider any point that may weaken their position.  The anti-gun crowd, unfortunately, doesn't seem to derive their goals in a pragmatic or evidence-based manner.\n\nIt's a uniquely American problem, and car analogies have nothing to do with it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxkemn",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "Well then you pretty much agree with me",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jaxk9dq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxl3x5",
                    "author": "StandbyHydraulic",
                    "body": "It doesn't benefit the \"cars kill more people\" argument because cars have a purpose beyond making something die.   Guns don't.\n\nThat's why they exist.\n\nIt does benefit the other side because as soon as a gun guy points this out, they've opened the door for you to point out that nobody is banning cars, but we certainly regulate the shit out of them, which should be done for guns as well.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxlgd0",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "Idk if you really understand how this direct analogy isn\u2019t a good analogy for your stance either. We don\u2019t really regulate the shit out of cars. You can buy a car with no regulations to the buyer. Anyone can buy any type of car as long as they have the money.\n\nAlso guns have many uses. Hunting, defending against people or animals for many parts of the us are still in wilderness. Competition shooting, also not every gun is designed to kill. A lot are made specifically for competition shooting.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jaxl3x5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxl9lb",
                    "author": "SickCallRanger007",
                    "body": "It's not really a comparison that's meant to change your view on vehicles or guns. It's flawed in the sense that obviously vehicles aren't made with the intention of running people over, but it still serves to show that how many annual deaths something causes should not be used as a valid leading argument for its ban if we are to avoid hypocrisy and double-standards, because then we'd be banning fast food and cigarettes, among other things, as well.\n\nAt least in my mind, that's the idea of the comparison. It's a flawed one to be sure but again, it isn't really meant to be an end-all be-all in the discussion.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxmicj",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": " yes in that sense it can be a good discussion if people are willing to have it. It CAN be a good discussion starter. But It\u2019s definitely not an end all be all argument or something you should state with your chest out like it\u2019s a good argument for either side",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jaxl9lb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxlmif",
                    "author": "Rise-Of-The-Vagina",
                    "body": "It's very simple actually\n\nWe got the 1st amendment,  which everybody loves: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press and all the other freedoms we all enjoy.\n\nThen consequently, we need the 2nd amendment to make sure the former isn't taken from us.\n\nIf you like all these freedoms and democracy, then you must also be content with being able to defend them.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxlth2",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "PERSONALLY I\u2019m pro gun. Even amongst pro gun people we will have differences of course. But I mostly agree with you. Although I don\u2019t think this really has much to do with my CMV",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jaxlmif"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxmw13",
                    "author": "nowthatsucks",
                    "body": "I mean why are vehicles even legal if they kill people?\n\nOne can say they save more lives than they kill.\n\nSame can be said by guns.\n\nIf Jews had guns in WW2, 6 million of them wouldn't have perished.\n\nGuns need protection in the constitution because tyrannical governments disarm the population and then impose a cruel rule over them, whereas banning vehicles is impractical.\n\nI can't see how ultimately the comparison can be used for pro gun control.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxyqpq",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": ">If Jews had guns in WW2, 6 million of them wouldn't have perished.\n\nThere were many armed ghetto uprisings. \n\nTurns out that if you kill agents of the ruling government, they don't just go away and leave you alone.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jaxmw13"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxpgjx",
                    "author": "stevepremo",
                    "body": "It's a reasonable analogy. Guns and cars are both dangerous to use because they can cause great harm if not used properly. Other things that can cause great harm include practicing medicine, practicing law, or designing and constructing buildings. Licenses are required for all those activities but one. I think the comparison does favor requiring a license to own a gun. \n\nThat being said, the fact that you have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, but no comparable right to own a car, or to practice medicine or law, favors the argument that the government can't restrict guns the way they restrict driving, or the practice of medicine or law.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxpqka",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "The thing is cars are restricted by licensing, registration, and insurance to drive in public. Not to buy.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jaxpgjx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxsldq",
                    "author": "Madauras",
                    "body": "I've heard gun control advocates state that you can't kill as many people without \"assault weapons\".\n\nI'll point out that the Nice attacks killed 86 people with a Ryder truck, and that the LV shooter included 60 dead with nearly two dozen weapons. \n\nThe conversation about potential and relative harm exists outside of the narrative people like to maintain.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxxk3j",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "Green river killer killed over 70 people with his hands pretty much",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jaxsldq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxusnn",
                    "author": "Im_Talking",
                    "body": "Cars are a benefit to society. Much of the GDP is a result of the ability to get to one location from another. Guns are not a benefit. A tyrannical government could overthrow the people in 4.2 minutes. The home invader boogeyman rarely shows up. A good guy with a gun is never to be seen. The supermarkets all have meat aisles where one can buy meat.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxxz2p",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "1. The idea that a less armed force can\u2019t defeat a better armed force is denying history. And you\u2019re talking about 300 million Americans vs less than a million actually combat ready soldiers in the military. \n\n2.the home invader boogeyman rarely shows up in your nice gated neighborhood. When you live in a poor community in run down Detroit you might think differently. \n\n3. A good guy with a gun is never to be seen? Does Elisjsha Dicken not exist ?",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jaxusnn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxuyu6",
                    "author": "TitanCubes",
                    "body": "imo the pro-gun analogy is best as a refute for the \u201cguns kill people\u201d argument or the push to hold gun companies liable for gun deaths. Should car companies be viable for someone running someone else over in their car? The analogy argues that both guns and cars are tools that require careful use but ultimately responsibility falls on the user. \n\nThe Gun-Control licensing argument is completely different and easily refuted by the fact that there is a constitutional right to gun ownership breaks the analogy.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb2jnrx",
                    "author": "jr-nthnl",
                    "body": "What\u2019s important here is that cars are not made to attack, defend, kill, etc. They\u2019re designed for going from one place to another. Driving is dangerous, and when you get in ur car to drive on the road, you\u2019re practically agreeing to put yourself in harms way.\n\nGuns on the other hand, are designed to kill, or at minimum inflict heavy damage to a living thing. Other people also don\u2019t get the same mutual agreement of potential harm, they simply have to live with your choice to have a dangerous machine.\n\nWhile they might both be tools that require careful use, one tool is designed for travel, and one is designed for attack or defense.\n\nThese are not comparable.",
                    "date": "2023-03-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jaxuyu6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxv78n",
                    "author": "GameProtein",
                    "body": ">Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d\n\nThis is factually untrue. We do regulate cars. Heavily. You're legally required to insure vehicles and take them to be inspected by the government at regular intervals. Gun insurance alone would be lifechanging when dealing with the fallout from mass shootings and just gun homicides in general. In person visual mental health verification (does the person appear sane and carry conversation appropriately) along with ensuring that all guns are in good working order would also change a lot. Especially if gun owners were required to bring photographic proof of gun lockers.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaxvh8x",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "For using cars in public this is true. Not for purchasing them in general.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jaxv78n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jay4akc",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "Every car owner has a grave responsibility to drive safely. Each vehicle is a several ton death machine. Some 38 *thousand* people die every year in car crashes.\n\nCars have been used in terrorist attacks. A box truck was used to kill *86* and injure *432* more in Nice in 2016. They've been used as weapons to ram into people and property by regular people losing their shit. They've been used in road rage attacks.\n\nAnd yet we entrust regular people with cars. I can rent a U-Haul in the amount of time it takes to stand in line.\n\nWhen someone does something stupid in a car, like driving drunk, we don't name the make and model of their car, we talk about what the driver was doing and *why* they did what they did, not what they used to do it. There isn't a campaign to ban the Dodge RAM 2500, the most popular car among drunk drivers, there's a campaign to stop people drinking then driving.  There isn't a campaign to take away *your* car just because someone else was careless or aggressive or insane.\n\nIf some psychotic person deliberately rams a school bus with an SUV, SUV owners aren't put in a position where they have to defend their right to purchase and own an SUV. They aren't blamed for the deaths of children because they support people being able to continue purchasing and owning the same weapon that is used to kill children. Even though they also have an SUV and could easily do the same thing, because the experience of owning a car is so widespread in the US, we can all easily recognize that it's actually the person that's the problem, and that we shouldn't be judging people who own the same car as being complicit in another's actions simply because they don't support being punished and restricted because of someone else's criminal acts, nor would we support efforts to categorically ban cars to make the public safer.\n\nBut because most people who support gun control don't have firearms of their own, and they are in no way impacted by the legislation that they're pushing, where the same people could recognize that the vehicle driven is of lesser importance, here a connection between gun owners at large and the criminal acts of a few has been shaped by careful messaging from anti-gun advocates.\n\nGun owners are seen as being complicit despite not having participated in or supported the actions of suicidal terrorists and murderers in any way, because they support their own continued ownership and access to firearms, a Constitutionally protected right, be it for their own defense, recreation or hunting.\n\nIf you actually look at the individual shootings, a pattern emerges: all too frequently laws were already in place to stop the shooter, yet the police didn't act, or the DA did nothing. To the gun controller the obvious solution is to continue adding more laws which won't be enforced. The only people getting upset by these laws *are the people who are trying to abide by them*.\n\nIf you look at the gun laws themselves, another pattern emerges: they aren't actually oriented at harm prevention. That's already been done. We have those laws. They're the ones that aren't being sufficiently enforced. They aren't even going after the firearms which are used in the *vast majority of homicides*. Instead they're going after private, law-abiding ownership and turning it into such a legal minefield that it becomes too difficult for regular people who *want* to exercise their right safely and legally to comply. They want the legal gun owners to give up, or be tripped up by minutiae.\n\nThis is where I think using a comparison between guns and cars becomes useful. People can actually relate to it. They trust themselves to own and use a deadly implement in public. They share roads every day with other people using a deadly implement, and while a few of those people *should not be driving*, their conclusion isn't \"well no one needs a car\" it's \"get that person off the road\". And if parallels are drawn to the state of existing gun law enforcement and traffic law enforcement, and deliberate legal encumberment, then imo it is quite a reasonable comparison.\n\nThat's if you can get past the licensing/insurance nonsense that people end up fixating on.",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jay9bde",
                    "author": "Salringtar",
                    "body": ">First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere.\n\nI think this is my least favorite thing I hear people say. If I want to compare our gun death rate to something and I can't compare it to something that's different, I have to use our gun death rate. So, our gun death rate is X compared to our gun death rate of X.\n\nHow is that more useful?",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaz7g4p",
                    "author": "robotmonkeyshark",
                    "body": "Honestly at this point any comparison and even debate is basically pointless except for just the enjoyment of discussion and brainstorming ideas.  There are some completely ignorant anti-gun people who can\u2019t grasp the concept of why anyone would ever need a gun and then you have a strong republican base who as a matter of principle will never give an inch and they don\u2019t care if they don\u2019t have a good argument or not.  They simply see any restriction to guns as a slippery slope and if they personally give an inch, they will be demonized by the others for caving in.  \n\nThey will throw out all the analogies and studies and anecdotes in the world, but if confronted with anything that shows some limitation to guns would be good, they will drop any care for nuanced discussion and the ultimate truth comes out of \u201cshall not be infringed\u201d and they stonewall there.",
                    "date": "2023-03-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaz9mtc",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "> then you have a strong republican base who as a matter of principle will never give an inch\n\nI think you may have missed the part where they have given several inches.\n\nThe problem isn't an unwillingness to compromise, it's that no compromise is being offered, only ratcheting restrictions.\n\nThe gun control crowd have rebranded a prior compromise a \"loophole\". They pass whatever they can each legislative session, and then come back for more. NY and California's response to Bruen was to immediately pass even more restrictive measures, defacto banning conceal carry in most public areas.\n\nThe reason Republicans are digging their heels in is because they've learned there's no point in compromise, because it isn't a real compromise, it's only \"what will you give up, today?\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jaz7g4p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jaz7koa",
                    "author": "BigDebt2022",
                    "body": ">to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere.\n\nIt's an analogy, not a direct comparison.  In an analogy, you compare two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification.  The important thing is that Not all aspects of the two things are directly related.\n\nI can use a ball as an analogy for the Earth. They have a commonality: both are round. But they also have many differences- size, composition, etc, etc. The differences do not invalidate the analogy.\n\nWith the guns/cars analogy, there is a similarity - both kill about the same number of people. There are also many differences - for example, cars require a Drivers License, registration, insurance, and guns do not. Again, the differences do not invalidate the analogy. \n\nThere are two additional points: First, that cars are not directly mentioned in the Constitution (well, the Bill of Rights. YKWIM.)  Guns *are*. And it says the Right to keep and bear them 'shall not be infringed'.   \n\nThe Second point is that, as with all tools, one must look at *all* sides of the issue.  It would be trivial to drop the number of automobile accidents to zero- simply get rid of all automobiles!  (This is, effectively, what the anti-gunners want to do with guns.)   But, at what cost would this happen?  No one would be able to get to work. No one would be able to get to the store to buy food. Not that there'd be any food to buy- there would be no delivery trucks!  The point is, you cannot just look at one side of the equation - the lives saved by eliminating cars- and ignore the other side - the benefits that automobiles give us and that would be lost if we eliminated cars.\n\nAnd the same is true with guns. Yes, if we got rid of all guns, there would be no more gun deaths. But guns provide benefits, too. Benefits that would be lost if guns did not exist.  Guns are used for hunting.  Guns are used to defend against wild animals. Guns are used for fun. For sport. For collecting. And the big one: Guns are used to defend against criminals.  There are anywhere from tens of thousands to millions (depending on who you ask) of Defensive Gun Uses each year.  Even the *low end* estimates are at least the same as the number of gun deaths.  So, banning all guns would save some, but at the same time, doom others.  This is the thing that anti-gunners do- they only look at one side of the equation - the lives saved by eliminating guns- and ignore the other side - the benefits that guns give us and that would be lost if we eliminated guns.",
                    "date": "2023-03-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb0tvgw",
                    "author": "GoogleCalendarInvite",
                    "body": "It feels to me like the fact that both sides agree that the two things are analogous means that they are more able to have a conversation about it. I think this makes the analogy MORE helpful, not less.",
                    "date": "2023-03-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11id0v4",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "I constantly see people comparing guns to cars from both sides. Saying that, \u201ccars cause tons of deaths every year too but we aren\u2019t regulating cars.\u201d And that \u201cguns should be regulated the same way as vehicles.\u201d Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d. \n\nI feel like all of these arguments are futile. First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere. \n\nSecond of all this argument can be used for either side so what\u2019s the point of really bringing it up if you\u2019re being partisan on the issue? One side can say that guns should require insurance, registration, and safety requirements, plus a licensing system. Then the other side can say, you only need that to drive a car in public not to buy one, so with guns you\u2019d be able to buy them without a background check and have a shall issue license for carrying in public that is valid in every state. \n\nIf you\u2019re standing for a middle ground take on firearms then this comparison benefits you I guess. But if you\u2019re partisan on the issue then I don\u2019t understand how this is a good comparison in any way",
                    "date": "2023-03-04",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Comparing guns to vehicles does little to benefit either side of the argument, pro gun or pro gun control.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11id0v4/cmv_comparing_guns_to_vehicles_does_little_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb63oy5",
                    "author": "Renmauzuo",
                    "body": "> First and foremost they\u2019re two very very different things and to try and directly compare them isn\u2019t really going to get you anywhere.\n\nThey have different purposes but there are some similarities. Guns are cars are both tools which have some uses, but also carry a lot of risk. Regulating them allows for minimizing the risk while keeping some of the utility.\n\n> Or that \u201ccars are far more regulated than guns are\u201d.\n\nThe argument here cars are more regulated full stop,\" it's \"cars are an example of how something can be regulated to minimize harm while still allowing people to use make use of it.\" In fact, a lot of the specific restrictions on cars would make sense for guns:\n\n* You can only use them upon reaching a certain age, and then only with supervision.\n* You must have a license, which can be suspended or permanently revoked if you use it irresponsibly.\n* Different licenses for different sub-categories rather than one license for everything.\n* Registration, and periodic inspections to check for compliance.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11id0v4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb647c2",
                    "author": "OkSnow9309",
                    "body": "Once again\u2026. Only for driving on the road. Not for purchasing",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jb63oy5"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11k46r7",
                "author": "thefonztm",
                "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                "date": "2023-03-06",
                "score": 1967,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jb5orgf",
                "author": "AleristheSeeker",
                "body": "Ironically, I would suggest the opposite.\n\nTruly good pizza is best eaten when it's freshly baked, the crispyness of the crust and the (relative) freshness of the ingredients adding to the flavour and feeling of the whole thing. As soon as that pizza turns cold, it looses a lot of its charm.\n\nWith \"bad\" pizza, however, that charm wasn't there in the first place - it tastes largely the same hot or cold.\n\n-------\n\nPerhaps a compromise, because we might have different categories of \"good\" and \"bad\":\n\n* **Great** and better pizza (i.e. restaurant-grade, not \"delivery\" or \"fast food\") gets **worse** when cold\n* **Good** pizza (from *good* delivery places) stays about the same when cold\n* **Bad** pizza (from *bad* delivery places) gets worse when cold\n\nWould that be an acceptable compromise, adding another category of \"Great Pizza\" over the other two?",
                "date": "2023-03-06",
                "score": 565,
                "parent_id": "11k46r7"
            },
            {
                "id": "jb5qlqi",
                "author": "thefonztm",
                "body": "Restaurant pizza is the one delta I knew I would have to give. The wide variety of ways it can be made and the definite intent to eat it fresh out of the oven are key factors - as opposed to delivery pizza which has a wide variance in time between oven and mouth. I've enjoyed several great restaurant pizzas that absolutely just die if you try to take the left overs home for the next day.\n\nIDK if adding a different category is necessary, but maybe. Perhaps, 'Pizzas designed for immediate consumption' should simply be a separate list. \n\nI want to withhold the delta to bait out more discussion, but it's easier and better to give it now. So,\n\n!delta - Some good pizzas are designed for immediate consumption only\n\nDelta given, but if you have more ammo on this subject, use it!",
                "date": "2023-03-06",
                "score": 136,
                "parent_id": "jb5orgf"
            },
            {
                "id": "jb5qq85",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AleristheSeeker ([94\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AleristheSeeker)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-03-06",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jb5qlqi"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5om6a",
                    "author": "unionthug212",
                    "body": "Pizza Hut is far better cold than hot, but it isn't even good by national chain standards, much less when compared to actual good pizza.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5p5p0",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Interesting angle that I was curious if I would hear. A bad pizza that becomes good when cold.\n\nOr are you just here to express your opinion of Pizza Hut? \n\nFWIW, I genuinely like the little pizza hut personal pizzas you can find at places like target. Those fuckers are good. Though some might call them greasy cheesey bread with a dash of sauce and pepperoni.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jb5om6a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5p3c5",
                    "author": "becomingemma",
                    "body": "I think you need to tell us how you\u2019re judging good or bad here. When it comes to food, people have wildly varying tastes. What may be good to you is certainly bad to someone else and vice versa.\n\nAlso, being hot in itself doesn\u2019t make pizza good. I\u2019ve had bland pizzas that were horrible even when hot, so it really depends on the pizza",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5rc0a",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "My judgement is purely on how much I like it. I don't break down the qualities individually in any way. I suppose that is doable, but I'm not inclined to approach it that way.\n\nAlso - perhaps it is of note that I very much genuinely like cold foods. I don't find all foods better cold, but I do find many foods people prefer to eat hot to be just as good and sometimes better when cold. I'll mention that here, but I won't put it in the body of the post nor acknowledge it as a point for use in CMV. Else people will take the easy route and say I have a personal bias and nothing else matters.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jb5p3c5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5p9as",
                    "author": "poprostumort",
                    "body": "Problem is that you are looking only for chain pizza, which already has limited selection of ingredients because they need to have ingredients that will stay good and edible for prolonged time when stored and stay relatively good when prepped for day work. Which naturally means that good pizza will taste good when cold because they are using only ingredients that can be stored cold for long time and ale already processed.\n\nNow if you make a pizza dough and add fresher ingredients on top - it would taste much better than chain pizza because the ingredients are fresh and tasty. But at the same time this pizza will be subpar next day - not because it's bad, but because good fresh ingredients don't have good relationship with being tossed in the fridge for a day. Does that mean that a pizza made from fresh quality ingredients is bad? Or that it is just pizza that is good but not suitable  for fridge storage?",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 37,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5py09",
                    "author": "AlwaysTheNoob",
                    "body": "Please travel the world, eating pizza at the cheapest places you can find in each country.\n\nYou'll quickly see that not *any* pizza can be good when hot.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5rrkv",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "I have already eaten little ceasars. This knowledge is known to me via painful experience.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jb5py09"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5tz04",
                    "author": "Genkiotoko",
                    "body": "In my opinion there are several types of pizza that need to be considered when discussing the topic.\n\n\"Artisan Pizza\" - They can have a wide range of fancy topings and sauces (including non-tomato sauces). Some of thesetoppings can be great hot, but lack the same texture cold. Ricotta warm is soft and delicate, but it can get more textured as it cools. Ingredients, not just quality, matter for whether an artisan pizza is good cold.\n\n\"Elevated Pizza\" - the places that may not be considered artisan, but they use the best ingredients to specify the exact pizza they want. This category really matters what the shop intended to make. For example, Pizza Jawn in Philly has a great seminola crust pizza that is wonderful hot, but  it isn't good cold.\n\n\"Neighborhood pizza shop\" - I tend to agree with you here, for the most part. Still, a poorly made pizza will not be good hot. Restaurants do sometimes go out of business because their product is garbage.\n\n\"Chain pizza\" - I agree with you here for the most part again. It depends a bit on the chain and one's preference. \n\n\"Freezer aisle pizza\" - I've had enough pizza back in my days in school cafeterias to know some brands are perfectly fine cold. In fact it may be preferable to the hot grease under the heat lamps. Lower standards and an expectation that the consumer may not immediately eat the food means there's a fairly consistent consumption quality, in my opinion. (Depending on brand)\n\n\"Gas station pizza\" - These honestly aren't oftwn good to begin with, so their cold versions are fairly equal in quality at the end of the day. I'd say they're bad regardless of temperature.\n\n\nLastly I'll say is that crust matters a lot. An ultra thin crust pizza may be very well made, but the sogginess gained from sittingaroundabsolutely destroys the quality.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5vd4d",
                    "author": "kyleha",
                    "body": "I have had a bread bowl of tomato soup, and I have had Chicago pizza. You can burn your mouth or drown in either one, but that's about as similar as they get.\n\nRegarding the goodness of hot and cold pizza, I'd say I haven't eaten actual cold pizza in about 30 years. There isn't any pizza that's good cold. It might as well be frozen. Leftover pizza should be reheated, and how you get it to an edible temperature makes a big difference. You can ruin good pizza in the microwave.\n\nThanks for the \"fresh\" topic.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb65d9a",
                    "author": "Growing-Wings-144",
                    "body": "Best way to reheat  a pizza is in the pan. Crust gets crispy, toppings stay moist and get hot.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jb5vd4d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb5xops",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I think we all can acknowledge that little Caesars is low quality pizza. But I\u2019ve ate it cold and it was enjoyable.\n\nIn fact, all cheese pizza I\u2019ve had hot, was also good cold. Maybe this is different for other types of pizza, but in my experience cheese pizza refrigerated well",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb64jgh",
                    "author": "Growing-Wings-144",
                    "body": "Taste is not an objective matter. Things taste different to every person, and the like or dislike of certain textures and flavors is made up of much more than just the flavor of the pizza itself. It's the emotions tied to it, it's the memories tied to it, all of it plays a role. Parting from that notion, it's impossible to state which pizza is better. Cold, cold as in room-temp cold, or cold as in fridge-cold, fresh, Italian style, American style, simple margharita, loaded with toppings, frozen bake-at-home, delivery from chain, delivery from restaurant, served fresh at restaurant, made from scratch at home. There are too many variants in the product itself, and there are too many variants in how an individual perceives texture and flavor to even be able to make a statement like the one you're putting up for debate.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb65b78",
                    "author": "00zau",
                    "body": "Topping throw off this paradigm; some toppings simply aren't good cold, and some are. For me at least, vegetables on cold pizza are never good; they turn into slimy garbage. This means that a mediocre meat pizza is going to beat even a stellar pizza with veggies when cold.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6cclg",
                    "author": "KaylynnLoveXXX",
                    "body": "I agree with you \ud83d\udcaf",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6fyfg",
                    "author": "Mr-Call",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s preference, you can\u2019t change taste preference with words because it is not rooted in any type of objectivities.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6oan1",
                    "author": "Derazchenflegs",
                    "body": "Inverse beer, you say?",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6od98",
                    "author": "Budget-Razzmatazz-54",
                    "body": "How the hell could we change your view on what you think tastes good? Also...why?",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6ra3r",
                    "author": "magister777",
                    "body": "I think that whether the pizza is good or bad cold has more to do with what type of toppings the pizza has and less to do with the original quality of the hot pizza. \n\nFor example, mushrooms. I love pizza with mushrooms, but when they're cold and slimy, not so much. Really any veggie loaded pizza is going to be kind of nasty when it's cold, no matter how much I like the same pizza hot. Meat topped pizzas are generally great cold (unless there's a lot of fat that has pooled up and congealed).\n\nSince you seem to think that cold pizza quality is more dependent on brand and not toppings, perhaps you tend to be limited in your topping selection and mostly get meats? \n\nAnyway, while I think the enjoyment of cold pizza has something to do with the quality of the original hot pizza (your original view), I think a much bigger factor is the choice of toppings which is not necessarily quality dependant.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6vb31",
                    "author": "AlizarinCrimzen",
                    "body": "You start your argument with papa johns and dominos held as examples of good pizza when warm?\n\nAt this point I think we can\u2019t move forward.. Pizza Hut, papa johns, Caesar\u2019s, dominos, whatever, it\u2019s all chain garbage? You have to know this. Sure, their ultra preserved food can generally be left out or refrigerated until the sun implodes and be compositionally the same, but if that\u2019s the bar for good pizza I think you\u2019re beyond help. \n\nGet some real pizza. If the Italian-American family doesn\u2019t look vaguely angry that you walked in and exist, you aren\u2019t in the right place. The guy tossing the dough may resemble a bareknuckle boxer from the \u201830s, that\u2019s a good sign. If you order a slice, it should not be pulled out of a warming rack, but placed into an OVEN.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb6z9lh",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "I'm afraid you're completely disqualified from having an opinion about pizza because you have a view that concludes that Domino's is good pizza. \n\nWhat the hell, dude?\n\nDomino's is about the bottom end of barely *acceptable* pizza. Comparing it to things worse than it is is like comparing hot dog food to cold cat food. I'm sure you might have a preference, but who cares?\n\nThat aside: One consequence of your view that you have completely ignored is that hot food has much stronger odors than cold food, which has *very little smell* aside from overpowering and usually bad ones. \n\nSo basically you're ignoring the fact that flavor is mostly about smell. Consequently, you'll actually be *better* able to distinguish good from bad pizza when it's hot than when it's cold. \n\nAll you're going to get from cold pizza is salt, sugar, sour, and bitter... the flavors your tongue can distinguish without your nose. \n\nThere's *nothing* about that which will let you distinguish good pizza from meh pizza. It will only let you distinguish mediocre from awful.\n\nAnd that's not even considering texture, which cold pizza basically only has soggy and cardboard as options.\n\nTL;DR: only hot pizzas can even be validly compared. Cold pizza can only be tolerable.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7402k",
                    "author": "GlyphedArchitect",
                    "body": "Hard disagree, I've had a few pizzas that were absolute garbage fresh out of the oven.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb763gs",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "I'm not going to debate whether this is true in most cases or not, because I don't know. But I am positive that it cannot be true in all cases. The reason being that certain flavors are amplified or dimmed down by cold. I like to make ice cream a lot, and one time I made ginger ice cream, and the batter did not taste gingery enough so I kept on adding more and more. But once it froze it was way too strong. Meanwhile, the amount of sugar that you would think that you would need by tasting ice cream batter, is never enough because sugar is not as strong when it is frozen. Both of these are examples of how for certain ingredients, whether they are cold or hot will affect their flavor. So you might have something that is amazing while it is hot, but you won't even taste it when it's cold.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb78c4c",
                    "author": "Not-your-lawyer-",
                    "body": "Hey OP, I know I'm late to the party, but I don't see anyone pointing this out yet.\n\nHeat affects how foods release flavor, and it also affects how your taste buds perceive it.\n\n[https://www.americastestkitchen.com/cooksillustrated/how\\_tos/5761-the-importance-of-temperature-and-taste](https://www.americastestkitchen.com/cooksillustrated/how_tos/5761-the-importance-of-temperature-and-taste)\n\n>The explanation is twofold: First, scientists have discovered that our ability to taste is heightened by microscopic proteins in our taste buds that are extremely temperature-sensitive. These proteins, known as TRPM5 channels, perform far better at warm temperatures than at cooler ones. In fact, studies have shown that when food cooled to 59 degrees and below is consumed, the channels barely open, minimizing flavor perception. However, when food is heated to 98.5 degrees, the channels open up and TRPM5 sensitivity increases more than 100 times, making food taste markedly more flavorful.  \n>  \n>Second, much of our perception of flavor comes from aroma, which we inhale as microscopic molecules diffuse from food. The hotter the food, the more energetic these molecules are, and the more likely they are to travel from the table to our nose.\n\n\\[\\[Edit: Forgot to mention it. Cold *also* causes some foods to congeal, which reduces their ability to distribute flavor to your taste buds. Grease and melty cheese and sauce all solidify when chilled.\\]\\]\n\nWhat this means is that cold pizza is, by default, going to have less flavor. This is a good thing for bad and mediocre pizza, because the bad flavors will be muted by the temperature. Excellent pizza, though, is going to get worse. Because the flavors that make you think it's excellent are going to be hidden away. Refrigeration tends to average things out, not highlight the best parts.\n\nBut, as you say in your post, some mediocre pizzas do get worse than others. Why?\n\nBecause *some* flavors aren't really affected by the cold. Or, at least, aren't affected quite so much. And two different mediocre pizzas might have different combinations of ingredients, so that cold pizza A loses a whole lot more flavor than cold pizza B, or that cold pizza C loses half of a flavor profile that's only good when it's complete (e.g., black pepper *on chicken* is good; black pepper by the spoonfull is not).\n\nPizza that's expected to be eaten as cold leftovers can be cooked with that in mind. (Not will. Can.) Pizza that's expected to be eaten hot won't ever waste time considering it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 44,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb84woj",
                    "author": "Efficiency-Then",
                    "body": "To your point I think it matters the amount of sugar and salt in the dough. This will significantly effect the flavor of the pizza regardless of temperature but may be more noticeable in cold pizza because all the other flavors are muted. And since salt tends to improve flavor this will enhance what flavors are coming through such as the sugar.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jb78c4c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb78ysl",
                    "author": "amazondrone",
                    "body": "> Papa Johns pizza is ok/good. But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad.\n\nThis contradicts the claim in your title that \"only good pizza is good when cold.\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb79w1c",
                    "author": "Alba-Vulpix",
                    "body": "I want to \\*aggressively disagree\\* with the statement \"any pizza can be good when hot\"\n\nAbsolutely fucking NOT.\n\nThere are some stinkers out there that you should not eat freshly off the oven, 1 week old or otherwise.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7aslt",
                    "author": "soundofmoney",
                    "body": "Little Caesar\u2019s Hot and Ready pizza is not good. That\u2019s my entire counter argument.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7dgo8",
                    "author": "easyjet",
                    "body": "Serious reply. Your statements reveal that you have never eaten good pizza.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7f36n",
                    "author": "AdeptusShitpostus",
                    "body": "Honestly I\u2019ve found cheap pizza to be relatively nice when cold, because it\u2019s 90% cheese and oil on a soft/bread like base, the taste of which is mostly conserved without heat. \n\nGood pizza has a nice but not overbearing crunch to its base, and usually has different, more fresh toppings which will naturally degrade in flavour and texture when cooled. Plus I find if the base sauce includes much seasoning that the seasoning is more prevalent when hot too.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7it84",
                    "author": "No_Use__For_A_Name",
                    "body": "I just had this exact thought this weekend. I agree!",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7ju2m",
                    "author": "Mr-Warmth",
                    "body": "High fat content \"chicago style\" deep dish or pizza with thick layers of fatty meats and cheese are utterly amazing when hot (while deadly health wise), but they are not typically good cold.\n\nAlso, most Sicilian style (thick bready square) pizza isn't very great cold either in most cases, but is excellent hot as well.\n\nSo, I have to say that in 90ish percent  of cases your view is absolutely correct, but once one moves into these two exceptions it falls apart a bit.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7nehx",
                    "author": "dnick",
                    "body": "Is say that based on your examples, your point of view is meaningless, it's like saying you like the pizza you like, and you like it better when you like it cold as well as hot.\n\nIt's like saying a good car is only really good if you like it when it's broken down and you like Ford's even when they're broken down.  \n\nThat kind of opinion can really only be changed if you decide you don't want the limitation there anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7oiu7",
                    "author": "SirJefferE",
                    "body": ">Papa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good. But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before.\n\nOkay I'm a bit confused here. You give Papa Johns and Dominos the same rating when hot, but Dominos gets a \"good\" rating while cold as well. If we normalize all pizzas to either \"good\" or \"bad\" and normalize all temperatures to \"hot\" or \"cold\" we have the following possibilities:\n\nbad/bad: This pizza is just bad. You can't help it.  \nbad/good: This pizza is bad while hot but good while cold? Okay. That's weird. I don't think I've had a pizza like this, but I suppose it's theoretically possible to achieve.  \ngood/bad: Good while hot, bad while cold. Your papa Johns fits here.  \ngood/good: Good hot and cold. This is the category you've placed Dominos, apparently.\n\nWhat I don't get is what you mean by \"good pizza\". You've split pizza into a few separate categories, then named the \"good/good\" category \"good pizza\". Why?\n\n>In my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. \n\nWhat rule? That some pizza is good cold, but some isn't? What's the rule there? It seems to me like you're defining \"good\" pizza by the ability to be eaten cold. If that's the case, then yes, the only good pizza is pizza that is good both hot and cold. But it's a little recursive, isn't it?",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7p76v",
                    "author": "MartiniD",
                    "body": "Domino's sucks at any temperature",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7q1zb",
                    "author": "Buttholes4Everyone",
                    "body": "I suspect that your benchmark for good pizza is lower.  Papa Johns and Dominos is way way worst than homeade pizza with homemade dough.   Cold pizza hides a lot of missing flavors in bad pizza.  It isn't that it taste bad but you lose all the notes that good pizza has.  I still will eat a cold slice when I am lazy but if I want good left over pizza, I put it in the toaster oven.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7r831",
                    "author": "AndrewPurnell",
                    "body": "Than explain how bad pizza can become good pizza when cold?",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7rgls",
                    "author": "PhDamnit",
                    "body": "I can't believe no one brought up the power of condiments. I have, in my younger days, savored a cold Lil Caesar's \"hot and ready\" with a King Cobra just by adding some decent hot sauce to the mix.\n\nGranted, the hot sauce does the heavy lifting, but is it much different than sprinkling red pepper flakes? In a sense, it is just another topping.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8u00d",
                    "author": "Chickenfrend",
                    "body": "I will say, there are many pizzas where red pepper flakes bring out the good qualities, but hot sauce could easily over power them. There are also pizzas that can only be saved by large amounts of hot sauce or ranch, of course, but often it indicates a bad pizza",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jb7rgls"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7subc",
                    "author": "SereneDoge001",
                    "body": "Hawaiian Pizza.  \n\n\nI think that says it all really.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7ycc3",
                    "author": "spiffymax",
                    "body": "#1) I\u2019m not reading all that\n#2) you\u2019re wrong",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb7zvii",
                    "author": "1668553684",
                    "body": "I don't know if I can actually change your opinion on something that fundamentally boils down to personal taste. What would changing your mind look like to you?",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb80d80",
                    "author": "darose",
                    "body": "No pizza is good when cold.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb81xtj",
                    "author": "CasuallyAgressive",
                    "body": ">tomato soup in a bread bowl\n\nYou insult me",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb82sk4",
                    "author": "KarrmahKage",
                    "body": "I love cold pizza. I rarely eat it hot",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb82tag",
                    "author": "Sammy_27112007",
                    "body": "Shit pizza with a side of piss will taste bad regardless of temperature",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb847zm",
                    "author": "POWRAXE",
                    "body": "Because regardless of quality, at very least, it's tomato flavored cheese bread, which is delicious.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb84k8g",
                    "author": "sublimemel0303",
                    "body": "You\u2019ve clearly never had Cici\u2019s Pizza. I made that mistake once. \ud83e\udd22",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb84rma",
                    "author": "MaoXiWinnie",
                    "body": "Try \"pizzas\" at Chinese buffets or other low end establishments",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb85ek9",
                    "author": "spacedragon421",
                    "body": "Good pizza is good when good.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb85uxu",
                    "author": "TheDanimator",
                    "body": "Papa johns to me tastes the best cold",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb87oyb",
                    "author": "flimspringfield",
                    "body": "It's subjective no matter how you put it.\n\nSome people loath Lil Caesars but I like it.\n\nDominos?  Yup people will say it tastes like cardboard and yet millions of people order ever day.\n\nPizza Hut, the same as Dominos.\n\nThere's a place that's close to my job called 786 degrees Pizza (Sun Valley, CA) and their pizza, in my subjective opinion, is really really good.  They have at least 10 different pizzas that I can enjoy and each pizza is a little bigger than a pan sized pizza but not big enough that it will fill you up properly.\n\nGuess what?  A coworker isn't a fan of it.  Pizza is too small for the price is what they say.\n\nMy favorite next day out of the fridge pizza isn't the brand but the mushroom and bell pepper toppings.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb89v87",
                    "author": "SignificanceNo4340",
                    "body": "I agree but there are some pizzas that suck no matter what (no not pineapple pizza) (no not pizza with anchovies)",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8a6rq",
                    "author": "poplafuse",
                    "body": "My biggest issue is that you\u2019re putting pizza in the refrigerator. I know it sounds awful and unsafe, but if you want the leftover pizza, just leave it on the counter. Refrigerating pizza ruins all of it. Also chain pizzas, while I\u2019m quite fond of some, absolutely suck in comparison to a shop",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8az88",
                    "author": "Galliro",
                    "body": "Change your view? \n\nYou're right",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8hjdj",
                    "author": "koalanotbear",
                    "body": "true fact",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8jdqe",
                    "author": "ShuddupMeg627",
                    "body": "I hate cold pizza so none of it is good at that point",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8k2cc",
                    "author": "biebergotswag",
                    "body": "pizzaiolo here, you really can design the taste when it is hot or cold. For example the Napolitano pizza is terrible when cold, because the soft and crunchy nature of the crust get completely destroyed. While thin crust, and crunchy pizza are a lot better when cold. \n\nAnd for the cheese and ingredients, usually by adding more salt, you get a better taste when cold, and some processed cheese are a lot better cold compared to fresh cheese. Adding more oil to the bread also works. But a lot of these makes the pizza worse when fresh out the oven, compared to the natural stuff.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8s7e8",
                    "author": "ourstobuild",
                    "body": "I admit I cannot even try to change your view seeing that we seem to have no common ground at all. I do wonder though if Dominos or Papa Johns is somehow different in the US cause I would definitely not rate either of the two ok or good in Europe. \n\nIn fact, I'd struggle to think of a realistic scenario where I'd spend any money on one. Maybe if I'd had a huge graving for a pizza, and only these two were available, but I think even in those cases I'd place these two chains so far from a decent pizza, that I wouldn't get one simply cause I wouldn't really consider them pizza.\n\nFor free I can eat them and think \"well, now I remember why I would never buy one myself.\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8thpo",
                    "author": "ch4zmaniandevil",
                    "body": "All pizza is good regardless of temperature and to state anything otherwise is blasphemy.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8w2vp",
                    "author": "Thefrightfulgezebo",
                    "body": "This just sounds like your standarts are low. Since most of \"the major chains\" do not exist around here (wehavepizza hutand that's it), I can't say much about how they compare, but there is a wide range of quality. Soggy dough due to overloading the pizza, bad cheese that forms a layer of grease make a bad pizza. Every further ingredient you adds in an opportunity to suck. I've had canned bell pepper on pizza and that tasted even worse than you'd expect.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8wkru",
                    "author": "AstroCaptain",
                    "body": "I'd counter you with some less common soups. Pizza may be the most common thing eaten both hot and cold, but soups like potato leek soup and certain pumpkin soups are eaten both hot and cold to preference.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb8yhez",
                    "author": "okami_the_doge_I",
                    "body": "Pizza is a pretty sinple food, I would argue that good or bad fresh will always be best and when cold better ingrdients will still taste better. For me pizza has a pretty small gamut of mobility and a hard floor for how bad it can be so debating if it is disgusting or less edible when cold seems silly to me.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb906hi",
                    "author": "rethinkr",
                    "body": "Explain why tomato soup in breadbowl style pizza is pizza and how you get to set the rules, you\u2019re supposedly curious how anyone could change your view but your parameters are wrong if youre changing the definition of things and then \u201cdisqualifying\u201d people for holding the actual definition. Deep Dish IS pizza. CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9966p",
                    "author": "Practical_Weather293",
                    "body": "My man you've never tried cheap pizza in Greecr or France, it's literal garbage, and being hot does it no favors",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9b9lp",
                    "author": "UnusualAir1",
                    "body": "Cold Pizza and Chocolate milk also cure hangovers.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9f1vn",
                    "author": "Nutellism",
                    "body": "I've had some pretty nasty pizza fresh out of the oven. I've had some incredible pizza that was cold but it was ruined because it was cold",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9iq4g",
                    "author": "bolognahole",
                    "body": "When I was a kid, my mom would buy these cheap, frozen, mini pizzas. I would cook them and then put them directly in the fridge to cool, because it was better cold.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9jxoi",
                    "author": "cubs1917",
                    "body": "No there is plenty of hot bad pizza. \n\n\nFor me it's the plain slice theory. Whether warm or cold or microwaved...if your plain slice is bad I don't want to hear about any special slice.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9mswb",
                    "author": "bbobi1",
                    "body": "I've never had a bad cold pizza. I've had bad hot pizza",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jb9ykir",
                    "author": "ComputerOk4958",
                    "body": "Yeh to Kavita bangyi wah wah.   Wah wah",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jba02rx",
                    "author": "Opheltes",
                    "body": "Back in '09, I was interning in Los Alamos National Lab. Los Alamos is, even today, very isolated. There was exactly one local pizzeria, Home Run Pizza. One day a bunch of us interns were sitting around, talking about how shitty the pizza there is. Not a single person had a good thing to say about their pizza, and everyone had a different criticism - the crust, the sauce, the cheese - all terrible. My personal opinion was that the box was probably better-tasting than the pizza inside. \n\nEven fresh pizza can be bad. \n\nSide note: Los Alamos is 7300 feet in elevation. One theory I've heard is that making pizza at high altitude is difficult.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jba0bkr",
                    "author": "kookieduck",
                    "body": "Good cold pizza is my all time favorite breakfast!",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbacol3",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": ">Papa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good. \n\nHave you ... have you had good pizza?\n\n>in my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from.\n\nIt sounds like you haven't had good pizza! I'm not saying this to be a jerk -- I agree that only good pizza is good when cold, but I super-duper disagree with \"any pizza can be good when hot\".\n\nI grew up eating Papa John's and Dominos, then moved to the NY area and ate good pizza. Had Dominos recently and my god, that stuff is weird, bready, oddly-sweet-tomato-sauce, soggy-cheap-cheese nonsense that's best neither hot nor cold, but when avoided.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbaysrr",
                    "author": "Steinermath77",
                    "body": "I'll say there is no such thing as good cold pizza. I've never understood how so many people actually enjoy pizza cold. It's disgusting",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbbu30b",
                    "author": "Godskook",
                    "body": "I'm from Chicago, and I was raised on god-tier pizzas from authentic Italian-Americans who probably ran mafias out of their pizzerias.  The southside stuff, thin square-cut, that you seemingly can only get in Chicago cause even when places do have \"thin crust\" its just a cracker crust that ruins the experience for me.\n\nI currently live in the boonies of Michigan with nothing but franchise pizza to eat.\n\nMy main options are Dominos and Little Caesars.  Of these, Dominos is *way* better pizza fresh, but I'd rather eat LC's pizza cold.  And the reason why is simple.  Dominos' crust is very fluffy in a way that chills poorly, and reheats poorly too.  The dough is simply only good fresh.  Top-tier pizza works both ways more consistently, but you can find some pretty bad pizza that doesn't lose quality when chilled or reheated by just focusing on having a dough that's fairly sturdy.\n\n>Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nYou're lucky you didn't say that in Chicago.  In fact, I'm not even sure you've *had* Chicago-style deep-dish because its more akin to a hot cheese pie with a marinara glaze than it is to \"tomato soup\".  Like seriously, I've *had* tomato soup in a breadbowl, and your proportions are all wrong here.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbc6mkk",
                    "author": "ThuliumNice",
                    "body": "Domino's pizza is disgusting hot and cold.  Something having something approximating cheese, tomato sauce and bread doesn't mean it is tasty hot.\n\n> But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad.\n\nWhat is wrong with you that you think Papa John's out of the fridge is bad, but Dominos is good?\n\nAlso, stop eating pizza at chains.  Local places are often so much better.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbcqyo5",
                    "author": "borrowedbook1",
                    "body": "Amen.",
                    "date": "2023-03-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbdqpq4",
                    "author": "trevalyn550",
                    "body": "I would define cold pizza being \"good\" as a measure of relative difference between how it tastes currently and what it would've tasted like if you'd eaten it soon after it came out of the oven. I think this is a valid measure because taste is influenced by our expectation of what the food should taste like as much as it is influenced by other factors. \n\nWhat makes good pizza \"good\" is the freshness of everything from the toppings to the cheese to the dough. On the other hand, when you order pizza from a fast food chain like Domino's, all the dough has been premade and the ingredients have been pre-cut and could've been left in bags for several days, which is why I'd argue it's \"bad.\" \n\nWhen pizza gets cold, the freshness of the ingredients deteriorates, bringing \"good\" pizza down to the same playing field as the \"bad\" pizza that was already using ingredients that might've been prepared several days ago. So for good pizza, when it's cold, that gap between what it would've tasted like before and what it tastes like now is significant. On the other hand, for fast-food chain pizza like that of Domino's, the gap is smaller because you were already working with a pizza that was made from ingredients that weren't fresh from the start. So in that sense, it's more likely that \"bad\" pizza will be good when it's eaten cold.",
                    "date": "2023-03-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jbvclai",
                    "author": "Pizzaking1978",
                    "body": "Any pizza is not good hot. where I come from dominos is not good pizza. that\u2019s like saying 711 pizza is good \ud83e\udd2eI don\u2019t even want it for free",
                    "date": "2023-03-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11k46r7",
                    "author": "thefonztm",
                    "body": "Straight up, it's going to be biblically hard to change my opinion here. This view is formed from years of experience and has held true every time. If the mods want to delete this cause I'm not open to change, fine, whatever. But until then, I'm curious how CMVers will approach this and what they will bring to the table. I will be open to giving deltas that offer good arguments or perspectives that I find valid/interesting even if they are not the arguments/perspectives I hold.\n\nI don't think I need to expand on this much since the title really sums it up perfectly, but in the spirit of doing so I'll use 2 common pizza chains as examples.\n\nPapa Johns pizza is ok/good. Dominos pizza is also ok/good.  But when I take Papa Johns out of the fridge the next day, it is bad. To the point it makes me regret eating it hot the previous day. Whereas cold Dominos is delicious. To the point of being better than the hot slices I ate the day before. \n\nIn my experience, this rule has held true across all major chains I've eaten from. Specifically, since CMV loves technicalities and specifics, I am speaking to 'classic style' pizzas / new york style. Don't bring chicago style deep dish to this party - automatic disqualification for being tomato soup in a bread bowl.\n\nOk, let's have some fun.",
                    "date": "2023-03-06",
                    "score": 1967,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Any pizza can be good when hot, but only good pizza is good when cold.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11k46r7/cmv_any_pizza_can_be_good_when_hot_but_only_good/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsva82i",
                    "author": "Islay-er",
                    "body": "7-11 pizza still wins for me. Plus the factor of being available 24 hours a day...which no pizza chain can match.",
                    "date": "2023-07-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11k46r7"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11tx1st",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 372,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcliwkw",
                "author": "UnhappyUnoriginal",
                "body": "I feel like this was in reference to respecting the recipe as it came from its culture of origin. Like, it\u2019s perfectly fine to tweak recipes and not have food that\u2019s \u201cauthentic\u201d to its original recipe. However, just like an abstract artist should be technically proficient before abstracting, a chef should know the fundamentals behind their dish before changing it.",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 73,
                "parent_id": "11tx1st"
            },
            {
                "id": "jclnptq",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "\"However, just like an abstract artist should be technically proficient before abstracting, a chef should know the fundamentals behind their dish before changing it.\"\n\n\u2206\n\nI can see that. Food is a science after all, best to know the rules before you break them and such. So chef would be better off understanding this stuff before she throws the rule book in the trash.\n\nBut still, you would't call that 'respect' would you? Respect donates a certain amount of humility. That you *can't* make those changes, and that you need to pretend that this culture is owned some kind of moral debt for having the good grace to let you cook that way.\n\nWhich is nonsense. Food is just ingredients applied in certain ways. No one has a monopoly on heating flour and butter and eggs in a certain way to make a certain kind of bread.",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 12,
                "parent_id": "jcliwkw"
            },
            {
                "id": "jclnspe",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/UnhappyUnoriginal ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/UnhappyUnoriginal)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": "jclnptq"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl8psu",
                    "author": "TheRussianGoose",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s more that you should, as a chef, if you\u2019re going to serve something that\u2019s a recognized cultural food, you should honor the \u201csoul\u201d of the recipe, and it should be recognizable as that dish. If a chef wanted you to try their new take on a hamburger and brought out spaghetti and meatballs, you would justifiably ask why they decided to call it a hamburger despite the fact that it\u2019s still ground meat, cooked flour, and tomato.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclk06e",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"you should honor the \u201csoul\u201d of the recipe\"\n\nI don't understand what that means? Herring under fur Salad is the best kind of salad on the planet, but eating it has nothing to do with Ivan the Terrible's sacking of Novigard, Tolstoy, Brishnikov, the Holodomor, the Great Patriotic War, The burning of Moscow, The October Revolution, or the Invasion of Ukraine.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcl8psu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl8v7o",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "I don't think your comparison holds up. Modern mathematics isn't part of \"Islamic culture,\" it just happened to be discovered and developed by Islamic thinkers.\n\nLike, you wouldn't say the telephone or the electric light bulb are uniquely part of \"American culture\" simply because they were created by Americans.\n\nAlso, it doesn't seem like Ramsey's saying you need to *learn everything about* a culture to cook it's cuisine, just *respect* it.\n\nIt wouldn't be a good look if a chef said, \"The Italians are a bunch of backwards, hairy goombas! Anyway, here's a traditional *Tagliatelle al Tartufo*.\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 114,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljite",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Like, you wouldn't say the telephone or the electric light bulb are uniquely part of \"American culture\" simply because they were created by Americans.\"\n\nSure, but that's arbitrary. We should look at food the same way.\n\n\"\"The Italians are a bunch of backwards, hairy goombas! Anyway, here's a traditional Tagliatelle al Tartufo.\"\"\n\nI mean it'd be funny and unexpected (not funny 'ha-ha), but there's no logical contradiction there.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "jcl8v7o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl9j6f",
                    "author": "videoninja",
                    "body": "When you hear about people being disrespectful of other culture's foods, what do you imagine? The reason I ask is because I wonder if you are arguing against a situation that doesn't happen and mistaking people's ire for actual disrespect? \n\nThere is a lot of prejudices against a lot of cuisines. Maybe you, the individual, don't care because all you care about is something tasting good. But for other people, what they eat has been a source of shame or ridicule. People not being respectful or thoughtful of food the present to others can lead to a spread of ignorance and misinformation.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljcwy",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"When you hear about people being disrespectful of other culture's foods, what do you imagine?\"\n\nSome examples:\n\nCooking curry, without knowing it's from India. Eating lots of Indian food, and not knowing about the history of colonialism, and not caring to know.\n\nEnjoying and eating lots of latkes without knowing much about the history of say the Holocaust, Passover, or Jewish history in general, and not caring to know.\n\nNow I'm a history lover, so I think that it is indeed BAD when people don't know these things, but that's equal for all people.\n\nA person who eats no Jewish dishes has the same obligation I think to learn about the Holocaust as a person who loves Jewish food. But this is because the Holocaust is a world shaping historical event that is important to be remembered period, along with the history of colonialism. A chef who enjoys the food has  no special obligation to remember this stuff.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcl9j6f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl9ybm",
                    "author": "VenetiaRat",
                    "body": "This is a very real debate in our home city, New Orleans. Certain old line creole restaurants stick to their original creole recipes (Antoine's in particular). Some people criticize them for being boring and stodgy, but they see it as a way to preserve that heritage. I respect that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcla90z",
                    "author": "negatorade6969",
                    "body": "I think people just think that respecting cultural differences is a good thing, so if a chef is making food that comes from another culture then it's an opportunity to do a good thing by promoting respect of that culture.\n\nDo you disagree with the basic premise that respecting and appreciating cultural differences is a good thing?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcletv1",
                    "author": "5510",
                    "body": "I think concepts like cultural appropriation or making sure you go out of your way to show respect for the cultural history of something don\u2019t really apply to functional objects.         \n      \nFood is generally a functional object.  I could maybe see a point if you are going way out of your way to prepare food in the cosmetic style of another culture, especially if it\u2019s ceremonial or some shit.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcla90z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcladkt",
                    "author": "TemptedTomato11",
                    "body": "A professional has different standards to adhere to than what a person at home cooking does or a person eating the food does. \n\nAn at home cook who wants to try a dish from a specific culture doesn't need to know shit. They don't even have to wash their hands or cut up anything in a particular way. They can put it all in the microwave. Your Italian dish can be canned ravioli. \n\nYour view is dismissing the role of food and chefs. Food is not just what you eat, but there are emotions, bonds, culture, and history behind it. An Italian American dish is different from an Italian dish and that tells a story. \n\nChefs are passionate about food and its history. They are ambassadors in a sense as they deliver a particular experience to people who may never have had it before. There is a deep desire to understand not only how dishes are made, but everything behind it. Food tour shows don't just happen because people want to see different foods, but also the culture and seen an authentic creation of popular dishes. \n\nIt seems if you look at any form of art and yes cooking is an art, the people who are most passionate and successful tend to be those who are deeply in love with the history of the art form. They have immense respect for it. \n\nHow do you know what to cook if you don't know the different histories and cultures of the world? How do you draw inspiration? If you don't respect it, how will you value it?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 31,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcli380",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" but there are emotions, bonds, culture, and history behind it. An Italian American dish is different from an Italian dish and that tells a story.\"\n\nYeah, but those a brought to it by the person eating the dish. Not the person who originally thought it up way back when.\n\nI can eat Indian curry and have emotions about it, say if my mom made it when I was a kid. I can come from a white family in the US and have that be true.\n\nWhat I can't taste or feel when eating Indian curry is the history of colonialism, the Indian caste system, or the Hindu religion when I'm eating it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -7,
                    "parent_id": "jcladkt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclan9m",
                    "author": "liknoramus",
                    "body": ">I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\"\n\nWhy wouldn't a chef have a sort of general respect and interest in the culture of their food?\n\nWhy do any social obligations exist at all.\n\nEdit: I'm also unsure how a chef could become proficient at making authentic dish without at least some respectful engagement with that cultures culinary history?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclhtun",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Why wouldn't a chef have a sort of general respect and interest in the culture of their food?\"\n\nI mean why would they? You can't *taste* the history of India. You can't taste the colonization of the country, or the injustice of the caste system, or the nuances of Hinduism.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jclan9m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclb5ns",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "What do you mean by \"need\" in the headline view?  Is it necessity - like \"people need to breathe in order to live\" - is it aspiration - like \"we need to stop the Keystone XL pipeline\" - or is it something else?   What do you think Gordon Ramsey thought \"need\" meant when he answered the question?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclf0vf",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "'Need' in the sense of either:\n\nIt is a moral need.\n\nOr\n\nIt is a practical need. Like you somehow become a better chef and prepare literally better food if you know the culture and 'respect' it (whatever that means)",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jclb5ns"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclb6jk",
                    "author": "Quentanimobay",
                    "body": "The difference between food and math is that food is a HUGE part of culture.   \nLots of different dishes have different histories and meanings within that culture and not understanding or at least trying to understand those histories and meanings means incorrectly representing those dishes. \n\nChefs/cooks are in a position to profit from the food they create and directly profiting from someone else culture while entirely misrepresenting it is not a good thing. Any time culture is borrowed (especially to earn money) I believe it's the borrows responsibility they are representing that culture properly. \n\nThere's a reason why many countries specifically control what can be called what. Italy is really famous for this with things like Champagne and parmesan reggiano. Mexico does it for things like Mezcal. With as the world becomes more multi-cultural its important to remember the culture where things originated from.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 23,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclewfz",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"understanding or at least trying to understand those histories and meanings means incorrectly representing those dishes.\"\n\nI don't believe this. People like food because it tastes good. I can and have enjoyed shawarma with a minimum understanding of middle eastern history and that has done nill to damage my enjoyment of said shawarma.\n\n\"Chefs/cooks are in a position to profit from the food they create and directly profiting from someone else culture while entirely misrepresenting it is not a good thing.\"\n\nCulture's don't *own* food though. That's nonsense. Food is just ingredients applied in various ways.\n\nLatino people don't have a monopoly on ground beef and peppers. If I make a dope chili, I'm just using ingredients in various ways, and if people like my chili so  much they want to buy it from me than good for me. \n\nSure if I'm white I'll have an easier time at the business aspect, but that's a problem with white supremacy, which is a matter of legal/business policies, not in what I eat.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jclb6jk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclcjm4",
                    "author": "dantheman91",
                    "body": "Is this an actual view people hold or are you just citing a celebrity chef who obviously needs to answer like this or be murdered by the media",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcldzcr",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I mean gordon ramsay says this. And I don't think most of the stuff he says is coerced.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jclcjm4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclcsak",
                    "author": "jbafofi4",
                    "body": "Can't speak from a cooking standpoint but can at least speak from a religious/spiritual perspective.\n\nI write a lot drawing from African/Black American folklore, religions, and folk magic.\n\nOne the things that makes it difficult is that white people love to \"dabble\" with these concepts but showcase no respect for the religious practices or its historical origins.\n\nSo you will get these traditions that are steeped in a very deep cultural history...being \"whitewashed\" by women online talking about using pink crystals and \"creating your own veves\" and equating different deities from different ethnic groups as one.\n\nThey don't respect that culture, their history, or their practice, and just use and change it to fit their views of the world.\n\nSo its hard to find genuine information about a lot of these concepts because people have to hide them from the 45 year old wiccan who thinks she can summon Papa Legba all because she saw him on American Horror Story Season 3.\n\nI imagine food is the same way.\n\nIf you have no respect for where it comes from, you will have no issue changing it to fit your desires and needs.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcldwr9",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Can't speak from a cooking standpoint but can at least speak from a religious/spiritual perspective\"\n\nI don't really care about that, because it's all probably not true. Gods, spirits, magic, crystals, spiritualism, it's all nonsense.\n\n\"So its hard to find genuine information about a lot of these concepts because people have to hide them from the 45 year old wiccan who thinks she can summon Papa Legba all because she saw him on American Horror Story Season 3.\"\n\nI'm sorry but I do not understand what this means. Can you rephrase this please?\n\n\"If you have no respect for where it comes from, you will have no issue changing it to fit your desires and needs.\"\n\nWhy is that a problem though? Let's say I making a thai dish, but I find it too spicy. So I cut down on the peppers or do something else to it to make it more enjoyable for me. Is there any problem with doing that? Because I don't see why.\n\nIt's not like I'm going up to thai people and demanding they adopt my less spicy food. I'm just changing it for me, and maybe the people around me who I cook for.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jclcsak"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcld6wj",
                    "author": "Sir_vendetta",
                    "body": "It should be respected if the chef claims to be a dish that came from a specific country, the ingredients, and the recipes have been passed from generation to generation, becoming part of their cultural heritage.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcldcoz",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" becoming part of their cultural heritage.\"\n\nI don't see why this should matter.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcld6wj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclfewm",
                    "author": "Derpalooza",
                    "body": "Of course you need to respect the culture that you got the recipe from. It's just that you're taking \"respecting the culture\" to mean that \"you're obligated to know the history of a country before cooking one of their dishes\". when it actually just means \"Don't call other people kooks for having different beliefs or traditions\".",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm90w0",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" when it actually just means \"Don't call other people kooks for having different beliefs or traditions\".\"\n\nI guess I don't see why a chef has any obligation to do that more than anyone else.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jclfewm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclfopa",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Eh, I don't think you're obligated to become a history nerd about the place and people it comes from, but you're able to cook in a way inspired by the culture because you're standing on the shoulders of giants (the particular cultural heritage and the people who practice it). Respect just means acknowledging and being grateful for the inspiration.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclfvyk",
                    "author": "5510",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with you.  I don\u2019t think concepts like cultural appropriation and similar concerns apply to functional objects and technologies and things.  If we didn\u2019t know about raincoats, but then we learned Vietnamese people had been making raincoats for generations to stay dry in the rain, we are absolutely allowed to say \u201cthat\u2019s a great idea, we are doing that too.\u201d  And IMO the same is true for good food ideas.     \n         \nThe one possible exception I could see is going out of your way to copy that cosmetic appearance of presentation of the food maybe?  Like not just how the food naturally looks, but trying to specifically present it a certain way.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclgo6u",
                    "author": "pipocaQuemada",
                    "body": "\n>I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\n> Why should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nCulture is a pretty big thing. \n\nDo you think it's more likely that Gordon Ramsey is saying that as a chef cooking Italian food, you should try to respect Italian *food culture*,  or that you should respect Italian *cinema*?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm8muq",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "How do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jclgo6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclhpg2",
                    "author": "JoeKingQueen",
                    "body": "I don't think they *need* to, but it adds an element of art to the food.\n\nWhen I eat food from different cultures, I don't want something just tasty. I want to experience what eating would have been like if I had grown up in a different place or different time. With different ingredients, customs, all of it. \n\nIt is a way to experience the world that I would otherwise never get a chance to. And because people generally put great care into what they eat when they can, I can reasonably expect the experience to be refined according to human taste. A rare and precious thing for people like us.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclovvl",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" I want to experience what eating would have been like if I had grown up in a different place or different time. \"\n\nThis doesn't make any sense. I eat chili during the cold Canadian winter. That has little to do with the hot climate of south America.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jclhpg2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcliamo",
                    "author": "Otherwise-Constant36",
                    "body": "Food is a cultural exchange. It is also an exchange of love expressed through food. When we cook and share cuisine with each other, we are doing so from the heart. This is not to say we don't use our minds in pushing the creativity behind different cultural cuisine.\n\nIt's not about \"I eat this, therefore I must be forced to know this\". It's about knowing that sharing food is fundamentally an activity of human care and understanding that can help you reframe your mindset around wanting to know more about the culture where the cuisine comes from. Great cuisine isn't just sitting down and scarfing it down. Great cuisine is about discovery and cultural sharing.\n\nYou can always tell the difference between a meal made and shared with love vs a meal slapped together without concern for the individual's well being. That love comes from ourselves and our cultures. And, IMO, that love should be respected and learned from.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcliqb9",
                    "author": "simcity4000",
                    "body": "An issue when you reproduce a dish to people unfamiliar with it is, the person/people you are giving it to don't necessarily know what its 'supposed' to be or taste like. \n\nSo if you bring home your bastardised version of [dish] that misses the whole point of it, then that becomes the only version they've ever known.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclo25q",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"then that becomes the only version they've ever known.\"\n\nYeah. That's how things change. That's just the way of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jcliqb9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclj7xf",
                    "author": "beltalowda_oye",
                    "body": "I think it's more of a if you're gonna cook something foreign and call it that, it better not be something yiu changed or altered so much its unrecognizable. As a result, a lot of these cuisines require you to use authentic or good alternate ingredients.\n\nWhereas you can certainly get creative with an idea while putting a new spin. Like fish tacos or Korean bbq tacos. Both are definitely not exactly respecting the culture of where taco comes from but uses fusion mix to create something fucking banging.\n\nIf I tell my latino friends I'm making tacos and only serve fish tacos, some people will grill my ass about it. At least provide variety or tell them it's fish tacos beforehand or something. No one wants to order a classic burger and get bait n switched with filet o fish with tar tar sauce when you were expecting Angus beef with ketchup and mayo.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcln4gf",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"If I tell my latino friends I'm making tacos and only serve fish tacos, some people will grill my ass about it. \"\n\nI mean that's their problem if you ask me.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jclj7xf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljou1",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Are you OK with vegan restaurants serving dishes labeled as vegan that contain milk, eggs, and meat?\n\nFailing to respect culture and tradition as a chef means failing to respect the ingredients, methods, and techniques which make a dish **that dish** and not some other dish.\n\nSuppose you go into a restaurant and you are served Jamie Oliver's Chinese fried rice made with chili jam. Are you going to consider that to be \"good\" Chinese fried rice given that it was made without traditional methods, ingredients, or techniques and doesn't taste anything like what Chinese fried rice is supposed to taste like? Note, asking if you consider it \"good Chinese fried rice\" is a different question than if you consider it to be a tasty dish.\n\nThat is an example of a chef not understanding or respecting the culture from which a recipe came.\n\nOr, maybe you decide to go into that new Jewish deli and order a traditional kosher knish. Are you going to be OK if it is filled with pulled pork? I mean, by your reasoning, there's no reason a chef's kosher meal should be kosher since there's no reason to respect the culture or traditions . . .\n\nBy your reasoning, a Jew who goes into such a deli should have no reason to be upset that they ordered a traditional kosher meal and got something that was in fact, not traditional and not kosher. According to you, maybe they don't even need to be served a meal?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcln08d",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Are you OK with vegan restaurants serving dishes labeled as vegan that contain milk, eggs, and meat?'\n\nNo... but that's an outright lie/deception/false advertising. That's like taking a DVD case of Land before time and putting the disk for Sasha Gray XXX-rated Bukkake gangbang in and then renting it to a family for their movie night.\n\n'Failing to respect culture and tradition as a chef means failing to respect the ingredients, methods, and techniques which make a dish that dish.'\n\nI just don't see the connection between ingredients and culture. German's don't own, or have a monopoly on beer, nor do the swiss with cheese with holes in it.\n\n\"Are you going to consider that to be \"good\" Chinese fried rice given that it was made without traditional methods, ingredients, or techniques and doesn't taste anything like what Chinese fried rice is supposed to taste like? \"\n\nYeah, I don't see why not. It's just a different rendition of it.\n\nTwo fantastic chinese chefs who have lived in China their whole life can serve me rice that tastes different after all. Why is it such a travesty of Jamie Oliver serves me a different take on it? I might not like it sure, but I don't see this as a problem with Oliver not 'respecting' the culture.\n\nIf he made a lousy dish, that is problem enough.\n\n\"Are you going to be OK if it is filled with pulled pork?\"\n\nIf I'm okay with eating pork? Sure. I don't see why that would be a problem. as long as they are not lying and sneaking pork in the food of non-pork eating people.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcljou1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljru9",
                    "author": "carpshihord",
                    "body": "What was the context of the question? Something like, people putting pineapple on pizza? I've witnessed more than one Italian rage on about that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclm8kp",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" I've witnessed more than one Italian rage on about that.\"\n\nWhat really? I thought that was a joke that people got angry over that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcljru9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcllnzq",
                    "author": "awaythrowthatname",
                    "body": "Gordon is not saying that you need to know or understand the culture, just that you have an obligation as chef to *respect* the culture who's food you are cooking. When I make Polish food, I respect that their flavor profiles and ingredients and cooking choices came from their cultural circumstances in a certain way, and as a chef that helps me to elevate the food that I am creating. I would not think about a traditional polish dish and their flavors amd cooking method in the same way I would a traditional Chinese dish, or a traditional Moroccan dish, or a Traditional Peruvian dish.\n\nWhats the difference between a perogi, an empanada, a pastizzi, a samosa, a burek, or a dang Hot Pocket? They're all dough folded around a filling and cooked at the end of the day. It's the culture that they come from which defines and differentiates them, making them distinct in their doughs, fillings, and cooking preparation. And as a proper chef, one won't know the difference between them and how to make them without affording the cultures they originate in some respect",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclm6ak",
                    "author": "methyltheobromine_",
                    "body": "There's two ways to interpret this.\n\nThe culture itself? Who cares.\n\nThe culture as it relates to cooking? Learn it. Don't end up on one of Uncle Roger's videos.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclni3i",
                    "author": "Regular-Chapter-7101",
                    "body": "Well not is it only respectful towards the culture where the dish originated but it also results in better cooking and more authentic meals. I\u2019m REALLY good at cooking East Asian food. This is because I understand it and have invested a lot of time into learning it. I can skim through a recipe. That intuition comes from knowing the background and culture of many of these countries. How poverty may have influenced so for dishes from a certain region, the seasoning is more important than the meats or the vegetables. Or how in another region it\u2019s more common to have more variety in smaller portions. So if I were to prepare them in a more western way with only 1-2 different foods in a dish it wouldn\u2019t be as good as it may be too sweet, too heavy, too light, etc without the rest of the ensemble to balance it out.\n\nThis is the difference between authentic restaurants and restaurants the just copy the recipes for the aesthetic.\n\nIt directly impacts ur ability to not only prepare the dish itself but to make a meal in its entirety. It impacts your judgement and ur instincts in these matters. There\u2019s a reason why cultures cook the way they do and a cultures cooking has been developed for thousands of years to get to the point where it is today. In those thousands of years they figured out a symbiosis of how foods fit together, they created signature tastes, they built a meal.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jdayb1x",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"How poverty may have influenced so for dishes from a certain region, the seasoning is more important than the meats or the vegetables.\"\n\nWhy is that understanding of poverty necessary? Why can't you just understand that these ingredients work well with this seasoning?\n\nThat knowledge you have is an interesting fact but it's not necessary as far as I can tell.",
                    "date": "2023-03-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jclni3i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclnqv7",
                    "author": "Jebofkerbin",
                    "body": "There's two sides to this, moral and practical.\n\nOn the practical side, if you don't make an effort to understand what you are cooking and why it is the way it is, your much more likely to fuck it up and misrepresent what you are making. There's an Asian fusion place near me that has sashimi wontons on the menu, wontons are a type of cooked dumpling, sashimi is raw fish, by definition what they are serving is either not sashimi or not wontons. When you screw up like this you are doing a disservice to both your customers and the culture you have borrowed from, you promised authentic food and didn't deliver.\n\nThe moral side comes in when you start looking at the economic situation different chefs find themselves in. Where I live Chinese cuisine has a reputation of being cheap and unhealthy, fast food basically. This means that ethnically Chinese chefs struggle to open anything more upmarket than a simple takeaway because people refuse to pay higher prices for genuine Chinese food. White chefs on the other hand have no issue opening \"fusion\" restaurants that are upmarket and expensive and frequently do things like call any pork dish char siu, or the previously mentioned sashimi wontons.\n\nThe stigma around Chinese food isn't these chefs' fault, but they are taking ideas and recipes from a group, using them to profit from opportunities that the group is denied, and then not even having the respect to understand those ideas and recipes and cook them authentically. It's a pretty awful situation to willingly take part in and perpetuate.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclnxgs",
                    "author": "stansfield123",
                    "body": "A \"culture\" is the totality of knowledge accrued by a group of people who interact with each other with great frequency and over a long period of time (many generations). A recipe is part of a culture, same as all knowledge. To really understand a recipe, you have to understand the context in which it came to life: the wider culture. And if you like the recipe, you should also appreciate the culture, for producing it.\n\nOf course, that cuts both ways: I think people who drive cars or use computers have the same exact responsibility: to understand and respect the culture which produced those technologies.\n\nWhen this \"respect\" is a one way street, that's not really respect for culture, that's just pandering. With a bit of self loathing sprinkled in for extra flavor.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclpl1v",
                    "author": "freakishbehavior",
                    "body": "I think a lot of folks are branching out into areas that aren\u2019t relevant. He isn\u2019t talking about christianity or voodoo, or taking any other part of a culture. In those areas, sure, you should learn about the culture that started them, but good food is good food. If all you want to do is eat, you don\u2019t really need to learn anything but how to cook.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclq03r",
                    "author": "HideNZeke",
                    "body": "Food might just be food, but cuisine is a cornerstone part of almost every culture in the world. Understanding the culture is how you make the dish properly. Sure, if you are able to get the exact recipe from someone of the culture and copy it perfectly, it's probably fine, but over time, the further a food drifts from it's culture the more differences appear, sometimes from replacing ingredients with ones more readily available or just mixing in new ingredients that a different culture likes more. If a 5 star chef is to make a good rendition of the traditional dish, respecting the culture it came from is merely understanding the dish itself. The dish is the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclqyfz",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "Respecting a dish and its culture is something that protects it from being perody'd, and it is very easy to make a lacklustre, inferior version of a cultural dish. So aside from an ethical point, it's just important for actually creating the dish authentically, not creating another americanized bastardization of a food that actually can be really amazing",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclrwe0",
                    "author": "cherflugen",
                    "body": "There is an obligation to respect the culture if you are profiting off of it imo otherwise no problems here",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclslkp",
                    "author": "Elderly_Bi",
                    "body": "Gordon Ramsey is an absolutist. \n\nIt is a positive attribute to understand the culture behind the food, so you don't just throw Pineapples on Pizza. Your culinary, technical skills are complimented by familiarity with the culture, but not trumped by them.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclz4f5",
                    "author": "GameProtein",
                    "body": "A chef isn't a cook. Being paid to cook isn't the same as doing it for free. Chefs need to be respectful when they recreate food because many casual diners will just assume that's what a particular cuisine is like. They have a responsibility to either recreate authentically or make it clear that they aren't ex. labeling the dish fusion. \n\n>Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo?\n\nYou wouldn't but you surely shouldn't be selling Pad Thai where all of the ingredients and cooking methods are inauthentic. Largely because that's not what anybody who orders is actually paying you for. \n\nRespecting the culture = not just doing whatever you want while still calling it by the name of the source dish in a professional setting. Nobody cares what people do at home.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclz9nj",
                    "author": "Unkuni_",
                    "body": "I also want to point out than not practicing a culture doesn't mean disrespecting it. You can respect a culture while not partaking in it. so you can make a dish non traditional way if you like, this wouldn't be not respecting",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclzr9j",
                    "author": "thisiswrongtool",
                    "body": "Even putting aside the deeper religious, spiritual, heritage, and cultural depth of one versus the other....\n\nIf I made a fanfic about how Darth Vader and Palpatine had a mad and passionate love affair, how it was, in fact, their torrid lust for one another that drove Anakin to the Dark Side, and it was only when Obi Wan caught the two of them in flagrante delicto that things REALLY went south and Anakin went mad with desperate longing for his One True Senator...... You might have Opinions.\n\nIf I wrote that fanfic and claimed it was cannon because it's just using the characters and what really ARE stories anyway, and Star Wars is Star Wars who really cares, you might have Even More Opinions. \n\nIf I wrote that fanfic without actually bothering to watch any of the films because everything I'd learned about Star Wars came from societal osmosis, you might have Still Other Opinions. \n\nUltimately, I'm within my rights to do all of that, but any SW fan is going to look at me with disgusted side-eye for insisting that it's cannon, and even more so if I don't bother actually watching the source material before putting pen to paper.\n\nCulture encompasses the stories people tell themselves about themselves, and part of those stories include the food. \n\nIf you want to make peeps-flavored curry, have at it. If you want to make kimchi but it's cherries, actually, nobody's stopping you. But food gets considerably better when you look at the source material, even just a little. Just like fanfic.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm1mnz",
                    "author": "SaberTruth2",
                    "body": "I think if you don\u2019t respect the culture Taco Bell turns into \u201cMexican Food\u201d. When in reality we took a few common ingredients and Americanized the shit out if it and now people in like the Midwest thing that\u2019s what they eat south of the border. For whatever it\u2019s worth, Taco Bell is a great hangover meal. But I live in the Southwest and I don\u2019t consider that Mexican foo.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm24c6",
                    "author": "Legitimate-Record951",
                    "body": "If you're borrow other peoples culture, you're also, in some sense, borrowing part of their identity. And if you do this lazily without putting in much work, it will sometimes seem disrespectful.\n\nLet's say I went to a restaurant in the US and discovered that they served sol\u00e6g. I try to order it, but the chef just look at me confused, because he have no clue how it is pronounced. I try translating it to english (\"Uh, I want sun egg\") but he doesn't know what it means either, so I ends up just pointing to it on the menu. I also find out he think of it as \"Scandinavian\", without knowing which country it is from, let alone which region of said country, don't know what to drink with it (beer, obviously), and don't grasp the social settings either (you never eat sol\u00e6g alone, it's more sort of a hillbilly ritual)\n\nAt some point I think I would feel that he hasn't quite *earned* it. If he was just some average Joe it would be one thing, but in a restaurant setting it feels kind of wrong.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmdo79",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Let's say all that happened, but the sol\u00e6g was perfect.\n\nWhat's the problem?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcm24c6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm2rc2",
                    "author": "Dazzling_Outcome_436",
                    "body": "Food has more cultural significance than just its flavor. In Western cultures, food is judged almost entirely on its flavor (and to some degree, its presentation). Certain foods are associated with certain occasions (e.g. wedding cake) but the association is weak enough that if someone sold wedding cake flavored ice cream, people would only care that it tasted good. And we don't even hold apple pie sacred, despite the fact that we use it as a metaphor for America's virtues. (We've had an entire movie whose highlight was the sexual violation of a pie. It was a big hit.)\n\nHowever, this doesn't necessarily hold for other cultures. If a culture has religious significance attached to a food, or if it is taboo to serve that food on random occasions, or if there is a specific ritual purpose to the food, working it into a menu can be offensive.\n\nImagine how Catholics would feel if somebody made a splendid dish using consecrated hosts. It wouldn't matter how tasty it was, Catholics would be justifiably mad.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmd6xq",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" If a culture has religious significance attached to a food,\"\n\nI do not think anyone outside of said religion has any moral duty to respect any religious significance. Trying to imply they do is immoral.\n\n\"Imagine how Catholics would feel if somebody made a splendid dish using consecrated hosts. It wouldn't matter how tasty it was, Catholics would be justifiably mad.\"\n\nI don't care. Catholics also didn't like Marilyn Manson or the Exorcist.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcm2rc2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm7drk",
                    "author": "drenzorz",
                    "body": "This seems like a misunderstanding. The point is to know the history and culture of the cuisine not the people. You don't need to respect the political/religious/etc history of the place, what you need to know is the history of the dish and why and how the recepies have changed. The reasons that influenced how it is prepared the way it is etc.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm7lln",
                    "author": "BstintheWst",
                    "body": "In Gordon Ramsay's case, it's because he has more reverence for food and the people who make it.  Not saying that you should be more like him, but based on what you wrote, it sounds like his passion for food is at a different level than yours. \n\nAlso, the appropriation of other cultures is only a problem (in my view) when theft occurs.  For example, if a well-known chef learns about a new dish, claims that they came up with it, and makes money from that when in fact, it was the product of another culture. \n\nThis gets to another difference between Ramsey and yourself.  He makes his living by cooking, so he is in a position where that kind of theft could reasonably occur.  \n\nIf we're just talking about non-chefs I agree with you.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmc2ry",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I like to think I love food quite a bit. No one on this form probably likes food as much as him, but I love to cook and learn new recipies.\n\nI also like learning about history and different cultures, I just think it's a bit holier than thou to be all 'Oh yes, you *MUST* know this if you are a chef.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcm7lln"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm7y0a",
                    "author": "Pristine-Lobster-285",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think it\u2019s necessary for a chef to understand the cultural background of the dish they are preparing. However, I do think a cultural understanding has the potential to incredibly increase the authentic quality of the dish. Pizza is a good example. It is Italian sure, but it has been so thoroughly americanized that it is almost a completely different food from its Italian root. If I wanted to open a restaurant that appealed to that pallet I would need to better understand where it came from. Is the dough hand tossed or pan made? Should I drown it in cheese or be sparse with toppings? For that matter, are any toppings like pineapple acceptable to include? I wouldn\u2019t be able to flavor it to my tastes because I did not grow up Italian - I\u2019d have to research the Italian culture surrounding food to understand that authentic flavor profile.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm8g3h",
                    "author": "Pristine-Lobster-285",
                    "body": "In other respects, perhaps a smaller example. If you were to be asked to prepare something Kosher. It would be necessary to understand the cultural reasons behind Jewish food rules. Like how you can\u2019t cook cheese and meat together but you can still serve them separately. But that\u2019s a niche example.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmbvyl",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"It would be necessary to understand the cultural reasons behind Jewish food rules.\"\n\nNo it wouldn't. Just know how to make the specific dish.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcm8g3h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm8qd9",
                    "author": "Maxfunky",
                    "body": "You're not respecting the food itself, your respecting the culture.  Why wouldn't you respect other cultures?  Do you want them to respect yours?  This just seems like simple \"Golden Rule\" territory.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmbta5",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Do you want them to respect yours?\"\n\nI don't care what non-Canadians think of Canadian culture.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcm8qd9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmd6eu",
                    "author": "chefanubis",
                    "body": "The culture gives context to the dish and makes you understand why the recipe its the way it is.\n\nThe examples are countless, why specific cooking techniques are used, ingredients, flavors, all comes from the historical context. \n\nFor example you could tell me to prepare something Vietnamese for you without giving me a recipe and I would know what to do cause I know why they cook the way they do and why certain ingredients are used and to what end, all of that comes from knowing the culture, it's invaluable. And it's not just blind respect, thing are the way they are due to generations of trial an error, it's it not arbitrary.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmdcu7",
                    "author": "Background-Pipe-733",
                    "body": "I believe there's a difference between \"knowing the culture/history\" and \"respecting the culture/history.\"\n\nYou don't need to know how Pad Thai was originally created or eaten, but you shouldn't go around saying their recipe is gross for using too much mung beans and oil, here's a better, more civilized version that you came up with (that's an example, not saying that's how you really feel.)",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcme9gn",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I mean I don't have a problem with that, save for the potential racism loaded into the word 'civilized.'\n\nBut hey, if you think mug beans are gross and you think your Pad Thai is better I don't see the problem.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcmdcu7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmfpju",
                    "author": "guardian416",
                    "body": "You can do what you want but given the choice I would go to the traditional restaurant over the one thats not.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmhu05",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "What if the one that is not has Marco Pierre White in the kitchen?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcmfpju"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmjf0c",
                    "author": "redditaccount0724",
                    "body": "You seem to be implying the word \"respect\" has an implication that encyclopedic knowledge of the subject in question is required. I disagree that that's how it's being used in this case. I think what Gordon is getting at is that to make a cultural dish, you should treat its history and the culture that created it with dignity. As an analogy, most people are polite to strangers they know nothing about. We don't have to know each other's life stories to grant each other the decency of treating each other like human beings.\n\nWhen you're making a dish from another culture, you don't need to know the exact city of origin, how the ingredients were discovered, the country's history, etc. That's a question of knowledge, not respect. It might make more sense to think about what DISrespecting a dish looks like. As an Asian growing up in the Midwest, I've seen and heard plenty of comments about how \"gross\" certain Asian dishes and ingredients are, and it's dehumanizing. And now, to see people on social media making dishes I love while substituting every ingredient that makes it what it is, because it's \"disgusting\" and \"who would ever eat that\" - THAT'S what disrespecting cultural food is, in my opinion. It's perfectly fine to adapt a dish to your taste, or to make it without knowing it's exact story and origins. But it's not right when people who go out for sushi every week tell American-born Asians to \"go back to where they came from.\" Respecting culture is more about just respecting human dignity in general than HAVING to have some specific knowledge about it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmjyde",
                    "author": "Prim56",
                    "body": "Recipes are not so much about following the steps as they are about understanding their purpose. If you want to make a good or better recipe you need to know why certain parts are needed and what their purpose is. Otherwise i could just replace spaghetti with rice and make a \"spaghetti bolognaise\".",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmp9nh",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Recipes are not so much about following the steps as they are about understanding their purpose.\"\n\nHard disagree. This is just chemistry when we get right down to it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcmjyde"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmnpzv",
                    "author": "14ccet1",
                    "body": "I mean, I suppose there\u2019s no hard obligation, but do you really aspire to be someone who doesn\u2019t learn about people different from themselves?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmocyy",
                    "author": "SaltFatAcidHate",
                    "body": "Take chicken and waffles. Great dish for anyone who cooks, either at home or as a diner line cook or somewhere more upscale. How do you prepare it? Some will imagine it as Southern soul food, some will make gravy like they do in Amish country, and some will try to emulate what they ordered in some trendy city restaurant. Fundamentals of food prep, like chopping properly and knowing how to pair ingredients, only require some sense of skill. But context matters. The culinary roots, the experience, the familiarity \u2014 I think to some extent we all use those references.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmpgjv",
                    "author": "Tarnarmour",
                    "body": "Dude I'm 100% on your side. I think humans have a weird way of personifying abstract groups of people, and we then feel empathetically angry at credit being \"stolen\" from a personification of a culture. In reality a culture is just a general trend that helps describe a group of people, it's not a person who's intellectual property can be stolen. \n\nFood has intrinsic taste and qualities totally independent of cultural context, it should not be necessary to consider culture while enjoying / creating food. And I agree with your summation at the end, there's absolutely nothing wrong with appreciating a culture. It's just totally not necessary to cook something.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmswth",
                    "author": "SlytherinSilence",
                    "body": "Does OP not realize that food *is* a huge part of culture?\n\nCulture consists of traditions, language, history, foods, religions, artistry, history etc.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmt3te",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Yeah I do. So what?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcmswth"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmtlp7",
                    "author": "writenicely",
                    "body": "As an Indo-American woman who was born in the USA and raised here (and am a Muslim too), I wasn't given the choice to not learn about the white people who made the country I live in, but I was made to. I was indocterinated to pledge my allegiance to a flag during the 2000s era when I was a kid and people of my faith were being collectively deemed terrorists by the white people who passed something called the patriot act. They sent in agents into mosques. \n\n.............................................................................\n\nIt has nothing to do with being a chef and everything to do with being a decent human being who acknowledges that you're not the center of everything, and that you're participating in enjoying something that other people came up with. It shouldn't burden you. Its part of acknowledging reality and having a sense of humility within a global world, or else you're just one of those people who goes \"I INVENTED WHIPPED COFFEE!\", seeking to claim and profit from something without providing respect to the culture where that thing originally came from and how it was created, what its purposes were, why and how its part of someone's lifestyle. And the reason why is because we live in an increasingly smooth world, where everything is being commodified and stripped and made artificially, and we don't even understand half the shit we do or the significance/ symbolism behind it.  No one is forcing you to take an entire fucking cultural studies course on how a burrito was created, but you literally couldn't have said anything at all and come across less as a willfully ignorant person.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmttjn",
                    "author": "Plenty-Green186",
                    "body": "Someone who understands a culture from which a type of food is from is better able to understand the quality of ingredients needed, what adaptations or substitutions works enhance it vs what is gauche.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmw1tp",
                    "author": "demonspawn9",
                    "body": "Food isn't food. You are a cook or a chef, there is a difference by miles. A deep understanding of the way foods are prepared and their significance in a culture can be the difference between an okay dish and a phenomenal dish. It's about the moment you stop stirring, the extra pinch of a spice, why grandma x always added a bit of unrelated spice and stood over stove watching her sauce all day. A lot of people never experience really good food because it's not readily available, much less knowledge on how to prepare it and it's a loss.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn1hmq",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "A chef serves food. To serve a particular dish should require respect of the particular culture from which that dish comes if its not native to your culture. \n\nThat being said making \"fusions\" or some kind of twist or variation on a dish should not require so. Food is food. \n\nA particular dish is a manifestation of how a particular culture has developed with food. Food is food but different cultures do food different ways. \n\nSo if you're trying to recreate a particular dish then you are trying to recreate what a particular culture has come up with. You are looking at that culture and deciding you want that dish. \n\nIf you're creating a fusion or twist or variation or just incorporating a specific style or technique into your own dish then that's your culture. A chef can be expected to be paying a respect in their own way as a chef by working with and choosing to work with those techniques or ingredients and shouldn't be required to show additional respect beyond maybe acknowledging the influence in the name or menu description. \n\nIn the end I guess respect is acknowledgement and understanding. Both cases of trying to recreate a particular dish or making your own fusion or variation dish require respect but different kinds. Recreation should require probably what Gordon Ramsey was talking about. Fusions or variations in original dishes doesn't require what Gordon Ramsey was talking about but does still require a simple acknowledgement in the form of usually just an acknowledgement",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn1k74",
                    "author": "hammyhamm",
                    "body": "Think of it as this: what an American considers to be Carbonara is not what an Italian considers it to be, because Americans use Bacon and other ingredients instead of the traditional ones. Does this mean it\u2019s still carbonara? Are we diluting the meaning of the food name by making something completely different and calling it that?\n\nI can see why the EU are so eager to protect names of foodstuffs as protected to their regions (champagne, cheeses etc) - it\u2019s in order to protect the heritage of their processes and also to prevent competition with products that may use the name but be nothing like it, sullying the quality that the Demi-\u201cbrand\u201d should otherwise represent.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn60r7",
                    "author": "lucax55",
                    "body": "Why did my dad see bread made of brick and rubble dust on display in a muesem in Stalingrad?  \n\nDid Russians think it equated to simple \"chemistry\" that it might taste good? Or is their blatantly obvious context, history and reasons for such a food to even exist that I've left out to illustrate this.\n\nFood is so inherently political, based not just on what's avaliable in the geographic area, but what's avaliable to certain classes or groups of people.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn6ua9",
                    "author": "Sseae",
                    "body": "Responding to this topic would be like explaining how to tie shoelaces in words. There is a clear answer, but explaining would challenge the limits of communication, let alone the minefield of psychology.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn821a",
                    "author": "wowhowbizzare",
                    "body": "When I hear respect the culture, I\u2019m thinking don\u2019t make something that already exist rename it and pass it off like you created it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnghlj",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I mean of course.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcn821a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcniiml",
                    "author": "its_alot_",
                    "body": "Food is not just food. It invokes memories, strengthens connections, unifies, carries energy and stories. \n\nA culture happens to include food as part of its basic building blocks, along with language, dress, design and customs. You might as well have said, \"It's just a culture, so what\"\n\nIt's a unique question, a curious one. Why do we guard precious family recipes, for example? I've heard chefs describe a special meal as a time machine. Its flavours transporting the diner to another place and time. \n\nFood sometimes is just so, but when it comes to meals and dishes from another culture, if you're going to make them, it pays to make an effort by not insulting the culture. Esp. if you're going to make it public.\n\nYour question reminds me of those influencers who cook food from another culture to brand it and sell it for profit. Do you think that's respectful? Aren't we lucky to learn the cuisines of other places, places with their own histories? The origin story matters and always has. Respect for that enriches the dish, pays homage to its home, keeps the culture alive. \n\nTo not be respectful of that, is simply trying to kill a culture.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnogsq",
                    "author": "MobiusCube",
                    "body": "This falls apart when you realize it's common for different cultures to have similar types or styles of foods. All of a sudden, anything different than your grandma's recipe becomes \"offensive to ___ culture\" and food stagnates.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcniiml"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnom68",
                    "author": "But-WhyThough",
                    "body": "Based take",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnuiue",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I've heard some good counters admittedly.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcnom68"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnp6ck",
                    "author": "rhb4n8",
                    "body": "This is the attitude that puts bacon Alfredo on menus as carbonara",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnuhtt",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "What?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcnp6ck"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnr3ki",
                    "author": "MusicalColin",
                    "body": "Posting in agreement: \n\nChefs do not need to \"respect\" (whatever that means) whatever culture's food they're using. Inspiration from other cultures is a good thing and it's how we get new kinds of food. You can go to countries all over the world and see what they've done with American cuisine just like you can come to America and see what we've done with cuisine from all over the world. \n\nAlso, \"appropriation\" discourse creates a toxic culture of gatekeeping in which only chefs from certain cultures are \"allowed\" to make certain kinds of food.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnzsbm",
                    "author": "PIKEEEEE",
                    "body": "Traditional dishes can be cultural. If you served a traditional meal to a person from the country the dish is from not taking care to replicate the traditional and cultural procedures will ruin the food. Food might be food for someone who doesn\u2019t know how it should be, but it quite literally is disrespectful to butcher a dish and serve it proudly to someone who does know.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jco171t",
                    "author": "Funtimes856",
                    "body": "Modern culinary (cooking) has evolved from eating to sustain yourself to an experience. That experience has all the nuance of today's culture (politics, normal behaviors, etc.). \n\nIf I were to serve you kosher wine would you enjoy it? What about a still born chicken egg (Balut)? Would you enjoy it more if I gave you the context and history behind the dish?\n\nAs a result, understanding the context for why people eat certain foods in certain ways is important in order to serve it appropriately.  It increases the experience of the food, giving you more enjoyment. The more enjoyment you receive from the cooking the better the chef. Its the difference between good chefs and GREAT chefs. Its not only the excellent preparation, its the presentation and setting.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jco1zcx",
                    "author": "Goblin_CEO_Of_Poop",
                    "body": "Gordon Ramsey is more of  TV personality than he is a chef. You can see that from how he trains people alone. Ive worked in restaurants that would have fired him for some of the dumbass shit he thinks is functional.\n\nHes also full of shit. No restaurant gets everything fresh. In order for everything to be fresh it needs to not just be locally available but locally available at a high quality.\n\nDont get me wrong I love his shows and I think hes hilarious. I get its fake. Its not some big secret. It is entertaining though.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jco4fje",
                    "author": "Kianoue",
                    "body": "The people who know the culture make the food the way it was suppose to which is always better. knowing a thing or two and abiding by there cooking habits is respecting the culture in its own sense. I think you\u2019re taking what he said a little far he might of meant respect the ethics of their culinary practices which he\u2019s right.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcode0l",
                    "author": "hannahst2",
                    "body": "A white american or englishman wrote this.\n\nIts easy when your country/culture has stolen all the food they call great. Its just food to you. But so many foods came out of using what was at hand, and not being wasteful. To make an amazing meal that has passed through generations and generations is to be respected, even it that simply means ackowleding and appreciating the culture these foods came from.\n\nAlso, modern shipping has made it much easier to obtain certain ingredients, but you have no idea how difficult it is to procure/obtain certain ingredients (see Saffron).\n\nThe internet has allowed for recipes to be shared, that may have even been a special family recipe, you can now just have a go at near enough any recipe you want from anywhere in the world.\n\nWithout these things, think how much you would appreciate a very special and rare dish you would never be able to eat again or recreate yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpudo1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"A white american or englishman wrote this.\"\n\nYou say that like it's a bad thing.\n\nAlso, this sounds like the kind of thing a white person with too much to prove would say.\n\n\"Its easy when your country/culture has stolen all the food they call great\"\n\nHow the fuck do you steal a recipe? What, cause someone in Italy had the idea to put marinara sauce on pasta, it's 'stealing' when someone in England does it?\n\n\"even it that simply means ackowleding and appreciating the culture these foods came from.'\n\nWhat does that even mean?\n\n\"that may have even been a special family recipe, you can now just have a go at near enough any recipe you want from anywhere in the world.\"\n\nAnd this is a bad thing?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcode0l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcoksto",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Box2242",
                    "body": "Its like saying why wouldn't I steal someones idea if im gonna make it better",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcoqez5",
                    "author": "calvinballing",
                    "body": "Math major here.  Most math that the average person learns in school is so old that we don\u2019t know a lot about the specific individuals who first invented/discovered it, or it\u2019s so common that lots of different people came up with it.  At this point that basic math has been pre-digested by your culture for you. But for cutting edge mathematical research, you\u2019re going to want to read the papers from other mathematicians who have worked in that area, or if they are still alive, ideally get a chance to discuss the field with them directly.  You will be able to learn faster when:\n- you know more about what has already been tried and didn\u2019t work and \n- why the things that do work actually work\nTheoretically, you could only look at theorems proved in papers, and not the steps to get there, but in practice, you\u2019re not going to be able to learn as much or as fast if you do this.\n\nSimilarly, with food, you can make a lot of tasty food yourself without paying attention to culture.      Especially if you follow the basic scripts laid out by your own culture (which may have already borrowed things from other cultures). But if you want to innovate, you can learn faster if you\u2019re willing to learn about the context other food has been produced in, and what people have tried in the past.  \n\nAnd it\u2019s a lot easier to learn from someone you respect.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcoqk00",
                    "author": "timohtie",
                    "body": "If someone does/makes something that is local to where you're from and lists that as being representative of your culture, wouldn't you reject it if it only bares resemblance at face-value but actually doesn't show understanding of what that in your culture represents?\n\nIf I go to a Cantonese restaurant, I expect to be served Cantonese food. For a chef to make proper Cantonese food, they should have some knowledge on the Cantonese cuisine and part of that is the culture behind the food - how it's prepared, served, eaten, which produce is commonly used and how dishes may vary between regions.\n\nA chef doesn't have to stick to the recipe, but any alterations should logically fit with the characteristics of the Cantonese cuisine. A novel approach to a Cantonese dish should still show aspects in thought or customs of the Cantonese cuisine to be named and appreciated as. Otherwise, it'd be dishonest to say it's representative of that, rather than loosely inspired by it right?\n\nIt's a bit like how book fans dislike movies that state they're based on the book when it doesn't respect the main themes and developments, and only overlaps in the main characters' names so to say. It may be inspired by the book, but to fly the banner of it would be dishonest to what it actually represents.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpeins",
                    "author": "IcyContribution8432",
                    "body": "You don't have to respect it to cook, but you do have to respect it to be a Chef.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpvnhs",
                    "author": "CareTaker1213",
                    "body": "There is a difference between cooks and chefs, and respect for the culture of food is what truly separates them. If you've never had the opportunity to work under a trained chef I would suggest finding one if you truly want to understand. Words on the Internet will never compare to the experience and knowledge you will gain.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcqipbn",
                    "author": "PhDinMisanthropy",
                    "body": "Ok",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr5n0c",
                    "author": "Livid_Department_816",
                    "body": "At least in the US, & a lot of other places, culture is a matter of very small differences. We live next door to friends & family. We grow up eating at whichever house has food or company (ideally both) we like. \n\nThe spice put in a dish will vary from house to house. How can one not have respect for a flavor that brings to mind something you\u2019d have never tried if not for the imagination of those who passed down their ancestors knowledge?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr6ak5",
                    "author": "Livid_Department_816",
                    "body": "You\u2019re studying food? What makes you say \u201cfood is food\u201d?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr6k4d",
                    "author": "Livid_Department_816",
                    "body": "You may consider that your biological siblings have a different culture than you. Why do you like different foods than them?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcubzio",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Box2242",
                    "body": "How can more men be single than women?? Considering many people are straight shouldn't statistics be more close ?",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcz5yqu",
                    "author": "2theL3ft2theL3ft0H",
                    "body": "Nobody really cares about any of this unless you're taking ownership or another cultures stuff and passing it off as your own so this post doesn't really make any good points",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd0pjdm",
                    "author": "DSMRick",
                    "body": "\"History of Mathematics\" was a required course for my math degree. There was an entire chapter about the Pythagoreans, what they believed and how that influenced their contributions to mathematics.  \nMaybe that is just a bad example, but I think experts in almost any discipline are going to have an understanding of the history of their discipline. I don't think there is a subject matter you could get a degree in that doesn't have a \"history of\" class even at the entry level.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd6ac3c",
                    "author": "Redditardus",
                    "body": "I would counter this by saying that, yes, indeed, you do need to learn something about the mathematicians and their culture. Makes learning math much more interesting and appreciate the history for the world. Of course, not seriously in depth, but at least some basic knowledge. I have studied math myself, but also history and philosophy, so I can make the connections, which is interesting. Development of the sciences has many parallels to other social issues and technology at the time.\n\nGreeks had many other philosophical pursuits than mathematics, surely you have heard of Aristotle and Plato? But even their writings have a direct relation to math, let's say, in Aristototle's Physics. Plato's Academy used to say \"Let none enter who hasn't studied geometry\". But I suppose it would be good to write today that \"Let none enter who haven't studied philosophy\", since it is the Queen of Sciences, and so few have understand it or have thoroughly studied it. Not to mention that Pythagoras apparently had a secret sect based around some religious beliefs of mathematics. Surprising quite how advanced concepts they were able to grapple with so early on.\n\nDevelopment of technology always has an impact on society. So has science. Nothing is more dangerous than a scientist who is ignorant of the larger context and a social environment in which he lives on. He is like a person in control of nuclear bomb but doesn't understand its peril. \n\nYour viewpoint is arrogant and self-centered. Our society has influences from many cultures, and it is good to acknowledge how each of them has their own role to fill. No man is an island, no culture either. \n\nBesides, gastronomy has a much closer relationship to the culture that surrounds it than mathematics. It would be as pointless as to say that you don't need to learn about Roman history if you would like to learn Latin. Eating is a social event, usually done together. In fact, it could be the most integral part of a country's culture, deciding largely how the society is structured.",
                    "date": "2023-03-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11tx1st",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 372,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcn57dr",
                "author": "lucax55",
                "body": "Have you met or know of a single creative that doesn't care or know about the history of their craft and influences? \n\nThey fundamentally know their stuff, and it's the context of what they love that translates into their skills. No musician I know just makes 'good sounding music' inspired by others without understand the context of it. \n\nBeing fundamentally incurious is antithetical to a creative profession that requires experimentation knowledge.",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 8,
                "parent_id": "11tx1st"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcnh99t",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "\"Being fundamentally incurious is antithetical to a creative profession that requires experimentation knowledge.\"\n\nTouche, but even if someone like Marcio Pierre White was oblivous to the culture and history of these places, I still think it is possible he could make excellent dishes and be in the moral fine area.\n\nBut it would be odd and unlikely to happen. So if a chef really doesn't care about this odds are he is not a good chef - though  not by *necessity* mind you.\n\n\u2206",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jcn57dr"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcnhdgd",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lucax55 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lucax55)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-03-17",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jcnh99t"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl8psu",
                    "author": "TheRussianGoose",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s more that you should, as a chef, if you\u2019re going to serve something that\u2019s a recognized cultural food, you should honor the \u201csoul\u201d of the recipe, and it should be recognizable as that dish. If a chef wanted you to try their new take on a hamburger and brought out spaghetti and meatballs, you would justifiably ask why they decided to call it a hamburger despite the fact that it\u2019s still ground meat, cooked flour, and tomato.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclk06e",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"you should honor the \u201csoul\u201d of the recipe\"\n\nI don't understand what that means? Herring under fur Salad is the best kind of salad on the planet, but eating it has nothing to do with Ivan the Terrible's sacking of Novigard, Tolstoy, Brishnikov, the Holodomor, the Great Patriotic War, The burning of Moscow, The October Revolution, or the Invasion of Ukraine.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcl8psu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl8v7o",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "I don't think your comparison holds up. Modern mathematics isn't part of \"Islamic culture,\" it just happened to be discovered and developed by Islamic thinkers.\n\nLike, you wouldn't say the telephone or the electric light bulb are uniquely part of \"American culture\" simply because they were created by Americans.\n\nAlso, it doesn't seem like Ramsey's saying you need to *learn everything about* a culture to cook it's cuisine, just *respect* it.\n\nIt wouldn't be a good look if a chef said, \"The Italians are a bunch of backwards, hairy goombas! Anyway, here's a traditional *Tagliatelle al Tartufo*.\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 114,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljite",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Like, you wouldn't say the telephone or the electric light bulb are uniquely part of \"American culture\" simply because they were created by Americans.\"\n\nSure, but that's arbitrary. We should look at food the same way.\n\n\"\"The Italians are a bunch of backwards, hairy goombas! Anyway, here's a traditional Tagliatelle al Tartufo.\"\"\n\nI mean it'd be funny and unexpected (not funny 'ha-ha), but there's no logical contradiction there.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "jcl8v7o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl9j6f",
                    "author": "videoninja",
                    "body": "When you hear about people being disrespectful of other culture's foods, what do you imagine? The reason I ask is because I wonder if you are arguing against a situation that doesn't happen and mistaking people's ire for actual disrespect? \n\nThere is a lot of prejudices against a lot of cuisines. Maybe you, the individual, don't care because all you care about is something tasting good. But for other people, what they eat has been a source of shame or ridicule. People not being respectful or thoughtful of food the present to others can lead to a spread of ignorance and misinformation.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljcwy",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"When you hear about people being disrespectful of other culture's foods, what do you imagine?\"\n\nSome examples:\n\nCooking curry, without knowing it's from India. Eating lots of Indian food, and not knowing about the history of colonialism, and not caring to know.\n\nEnjoying and eating lots of latkes without knowing much about the history of say the Holocaust, Passover, or Jewish history in general, and not caring to know.\n\nNow I'm a history lover, so I think that it is indeed BAD when people don't know these things, but that's equal for all people.\n\nA person who eats no Jewish dishes has the same obligation I think to learn about the Holocaust as a person who loves Jewish food. But this is because the Holocaust is a world shaping historical event that is important to be remembered period, along with the history of colonialism. A chef who enjoys the food has  no special obligation to remember this stuff.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcl9j6f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcl9ybm",
                    "author": "VenetiaRat",
                    "body": "This is a very real debate in our home city, New Orleans. Certain old line creole restaurants stick to their original creole recipes (Antoine's in particular). Some people criticize them for being boring and stodgy, but they see it as a way to preserve that heritage. I respect that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcla90z",
                    "author": "negatorade6969",
                    "body": "I think people just think that respecting cultural differences is a good thing, so if a chef is making food that comes from another culture then it's an opportunity to do a good thing by promoting respect of that culture.\n\nDo you disagree with the basic premise that respecting and appreciating cultural differences is a good thing?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcletv1",
                    "author": "5510",
                    "body": "I think concepts like cultural appropriation or making sure you go out of your way to show respect for the cultural history of something don\u2019t really apply to functional objects.         \n      \nFood is generally a functional object.  I could maybe see a point if you are going way out of your way to prepare food in the cosmetic style of another culture, especially if it\u2019s ceremonial or some shit.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcla90z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcladkt",
                    "author": "TemptedTomato11",
                    "body": "A professional has different standards to adhere to than what a person at home cooking does or a person eating the food does. \n\nAn at home cook who wants to try a dish from a specific culture doesn't need to know shit. They don't even have to wash their hands or cut up anything in a particular way. They can put it all in the microwave. Your Italian dish can be canned ravioli. \n\nYour view is dismissing the role of food and chefs. Food is not just what you eat, but there are emotions, bonds, culture, and history behind it. An Italian American dish is different from an Italian dish and that tells a story. \n\nChefs are passionate about food and its history. They are ambassadors in a sense as they deliver a particular experience to people who may never have had it before. There is a deep desire to understand not only how dishes are made, but everything behind it. Food tour shows don't just happen because people want to see different foods, but also the culture and seen an authentic creation of popular dishes. \n\nIt seems if you look at any form of art and yes cooking is an art, the people who are most passionate and successful tend to be those who are deeply in love with the history of the art form. They have immense respect for it. \n\nHow do you know what to cook if you don't know the different histories and cultures of the world? How do you draw inspiration? If you don't respect it, how will you value it?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 31,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcli380",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" but there are emotions, bonds, culture, and history behind it. An Italian American dish is different from an Italian dish and that tells a story.\"\n\nYeah, but those a brought to it by the person eating the dish. Not the person who originally thought it up way back when.\n\nI can eat Indian curry and have emotions about it, say if my mom made it when I was a kid. I can come from a white family in the US and have that be true.\n\nWhat I can't taste or feel when eating Indian curry is the history of colonialism, the Indian caste system, or the Hindu religion when I'm eating it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -7,
                    "parent_id": "jcladkt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclan9m",
                    "author": "liknoramus",
                    "body": ">I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\"\n\nWhy wouldn't a chef have a sort of general respect and interest in the culture of their food?\n\nWhy do any social obligations exist at all.\n\nEdit: I'm also unsure how a chef could become proficient at making authentic dish without at least some respectful engagement with that cultures culinary history?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclhtun",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Why wouldn't a chef have a sort of general respect and interest in the culture of their food?\"\n\nI mean why would they? You can't *taste* the history of India. You can't taste the colonization of the country, or the injustice of the caste system, or the nuances of Hinduism.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jclan9m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclb5ns",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "What do you mean by \"need\" in the headline view?  Is it necessity - like \"people need to breathe in order to live\" - is it aspiration - like \"we need to stop the Keystone XL pipeline\" - or is it something else?   What do you think Gordon Ramsey thought \"need\" meant when he answered the question?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclf0vf",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "'Need' in the sense of either:\n\nIt is a moral need.\n\nOr\n\nIt is a practical need. Like you somehow become a better chef and prepare literally better food if you know the culture and 'respect' it (whatever that means)",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jclb5ns"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclb6jk",
                    "author": "Quentanimobay",
                    "body": "The difference between food and math is that food is a HUGE part of culture.   \nLots of different dishes have different histories and meanings within that culture and not understanding or at least trying to understand those histories and meanings means incorrectly representing those dishes. \n\nChefs/cooks are in a position to profit from the food they create and directly profiting from someone else culture while entirely misrepresenting it is not a good thing. Any time culture is borrowed (especially to earn money) I believe it's the borrows responsibility they are representing that culture properly. \n\nThere's a reason why many countries specifically control what can be called what. Italy is really famous for this with things like Champagne and parmesan reggiano. Mexico does it for things like Mezcal. With as the world becomes more multi-cultural its important to remember the culture where things originated from.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 23,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclewfz",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"understanding or at least trying to understand those histories and meanings means incorrectly representing those dishes.\"\n\nI don't believe this. People like food because it tastes good. I can and have enjoyed shawarma with a minimum understanding of middle eastern history and that has done nill to damage my enjoyment of said shawarma.\n\n\"Chefs/cooks are in a position to profit from the food they create and directly profiting from someone else culture while entirely misrepresenting it is not a good thing.\"\n\nCulture's don't *own* food though. That's nonsense. Food is just ingredients applied in various ways.\n\nLatino people don't have a monopoly on ground beef and peppers. If I make a dope chili, I'm just using ingredients in various ways, and if people like my chili so  much they want to buy it from me than good for me. \n\nSure if I'm white I'll have an easier time at the business aspect, but that's a problem with white supremacy, which is a matter of legal/business policies, not in what I eat.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jclb6jk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclcjm4",
                    "author": "dantheman91",
                    "body": "Is this an actual view people hold or are you just citing a celebrity chef who obviously needs to answer like this or be murdered by the media",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcldzcr",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I mean gordon ramsay says this. And I don't think most of the stuff he says is coerced.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jclcjm4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclcsak",
                    "author": "jbafofi4",
                    "body": "Can't speak from a cooking standpoint but can at least speak from a religious/spiritual perspective.\n\nI write a lot drawing from African/Black American folklore, religions, and folk magic.\n\nOne the things that makes it difficult is that white people love to \"dabble\" with these concepts but showcase no respect for the religious practices or its historical origins.\n\nSo you will get these traditions that are steeped in a very deep cultural history...being \"whitewashed\" by women online talking about using pink crystals and \"creating your own veves\" and equating different deities from different ethnic groups as one.\n\nThey don't respect that culture, their history, or their practice, and just use and change it to fit their views of the world.\n\nSo its hard to find genuine information about a lot of these concepts because people have to hide them from the 45 year old wiccan who thinks she can summon Papa Legba all because she saw him on American Horror Story Season 3.\n\nI imagine food is the same way.\n\nIf you have no respect for where it comes from, you will have no issue changing it to fit your desires and needs.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcldwr9",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Can't speak from a cooking standpoint but can at least speak from a religious/spiritual perspective\"\n\nI don't really care about that, because it's all probably not true. Gods, spirits, magic, crystals, spiritualism, it's all nonsense.\n\n\"So its hard to find genuine information about a lot of these concepts because people have to hide them from the 45 year old wiccan who thinks she can summon Papa Legba all because she saw him on American Horror Story Season 3.\"\n\nI'm sorry but I do not understand what this means. Can you rephrase this please?\n\n\"If you have no respect for where it comes from, you will have no issue changing it to fit your desires and needs.\"\n\nWhy is that a problem though? Let's say I making a thai dish, but I find it too spicy. So I cut down on the peppers or do something else to it to make it more enjoyable for me. Is there any problem with doing that? Because I don't see why.\n\nIt's not like I'm going up to thai people and demanding they adopt my less spicy food. I'm just changing it for me, and maybe the people around me who I cook for.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jclcsak"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcld6wj",
                    "author": "Sir_vendetta",
                    "body": "It should be respected if the chef claims to be a dish that came from a specific country, the ingredients, and the recipes have been passed from generation to generation, becoming part of their cultural heritage.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcldcoz",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" becoming part of their cultural heritage.\"\n\nI don't see why this should matter.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcld6wj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclfewm",
                    "author": "Derpalooza",
                    "body": "Of course you need to respect the culture that you got the recipe from. It's just that you're taking \"respecting the culture\" to mean that \"you're obligated to know the history of a country before cooking one of their dishes\". when it actually just means \"Don't call other people kooks for having different beliefs or traditions\".",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm90w0",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" when it actually just means \"Don't call other people kooks for having different beliefs or traditions\".\"\n\nI guess I don't see why a chef has any obligation to do that more than anyone else.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jclfewm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclfopa",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Eh, I don't think you're obligated to become a history nerd about the place and people it comes from, but you're able to cook in a way inspired by the culture because you're standing on the shoulders of giants (the particular cultural heritage and the people who practice it). Respect just means acknowledging and being grateful for the inspiration.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclfvyk",
                    "author": "5510",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with you.  I don\u2019t think concepts like cultural appropriation and similar concerns apply to functional objects and technologies and things.  If we didn\u2019t know about raincoats, but then we learned Vietnamese people had been making raincoats for generations to stay dry in the rain, we are absolutely allowed to say \u201cthat\u2019s a great idea, we are doing that too.\u201d  And IMO the same is true for good food ideas.     \n         \nThe one possible exception I could see is going out of your way to copy that cosmetic appearance of presentation of the food maybe?  Like not just how the food naturally looks, but trying to specifically present it a certain way.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclgo6u",
                    "author": "pipocaQuemada",
                    "body": "\n>I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\n> Why should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nCulture is a pretty big thing. \n\nDo you think it's more likely that Gordon Ramsey is saying that as a chef cooking Italian food, you should try to respect Italian *food culture*,  or that you should respect Italian *cinema*?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm8muq",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "How do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jclgo6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclhpg2",
                    "author": "JoeKingQueen",
                    "body": "I don't think they *need* to, but it adds an element of art to the food.\n\nWhen I eat food from different cultures, I don't want something just tasty. I want to experience what eating would have been like if I had grown up in a different place or different time. With different ingredients, customs, all of it. \n\nIt is a way to experience the world that I would otherwise never get a chance to. And because people generally put great care into what they eat when they can, I can reasonably expect the experience to be refined according to human taste. A rare and precious thing for people like us.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclovvl",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" I want to experience what eating would have been like if I had grown up in a different place or different time. \"\n\nThis doesn't make any sense. I eat chili during the cold Canadian winter. That has little to do with the hot climate of south America.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jclhpg2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcliamo",
                    "author": "Otherwise-Constant36",
                    "body": "Food is a cultural exchange. It is also an exchange of love expressed through food. When we cook and share cuisine with each other, we are doing so from the heart. This is not to say we don't use our minds in pushing the creativity behind different cultural cuisine.\n\nIt's not about \"I eat this, therefore I must be forced to know this\". It's about knowing that sharing food is fundamentally an activity of human care and understanding that can help you reframe your mindset around wanting to know more about the culture where the cuisine comes from. Great cuisine isn't just sitting down and scarfing it down. Great cuisine is about discovery and cultural sharing.\n\nYou can always tell the difference between a meal made and shared with love vs a meal slapped together without concern for the individual's well being. That love comes from ourselves and our cultures. And, IMO, that love should be respected and learned from.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcliqb9",
                    "author": "simcity4000",
                    "body": "An issue when you reproduce a dish to people unfamiliar with it is, the person/people you are giving it to don't necessarily know what its 'supposed' to be or taste like. \n\nSo if you bring home your bastardised version of [dish] that misses the whole point of it, then that becomes the only version they've ever known.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclo25q",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"then that becomes the only version they've ever known.\"\n\nYeah. That's how things change. That's just the way of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jcliqb9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclj7xf",
                    "author": "beltalowda_oye",
                    "body": "I think it's more of a if you're gonna cook something foreign and call it that, it better not be something yiu changed or altered so much its unrecognizable. As a result, a lot of these cuisines require you to use authentic or good alternate ingredients.\n\nWhereas you can certainly get creative with an idea while putting a new spin. Like fish tacos or Korean bbq tacos. Both are definitely not exactly respecting the culture of where taco comes from but uses fusion mix to create something fucking banging.\n\nIf I tell my latino friends I'm making tacos and only serve fish tacos, some people will grill my ass about it. At least provide variety or tell them it's fish tacos beforehand or something. No one wants to order a classic burger and get bait n switched with filet o fish with tar tar sauce when you were expecting Angus beef with ketchup and mayo.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcln4gf",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"If I tell my latino friends I'm making tacos and only serve fish tacos, some people will grill my ass about it. \"\n\nI mean that's their problem if you ask me.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jclj7xf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljou1",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Are you OK with vegan restaurants serving dishes labeled as vegan that contain milk, eggs, and meat?\n\nFailing to respect culture and tradition as a chef means failing to respect the ingredients, methods, and techniques which make a dish **that dish** and not some other dish.\n\nSuppose you go into a restaurant and you are served Jamie Oliver's Chinese fried rice made with chili jam. Are you going to consider that to be \"good\" Chinese fried rice given that it was made without traditional methods, ingredients, or techniques and doesn't taste anything like what Chinese fried rice is supposed to taste like? Note, asking if you consider it \"good Chinese fried rice\" is a different question than if you consider it to be a tasty dish.\n\nThat is an example of a chef not understanding or respecting the culture from which a recipe came.\n\nOr, maybe you decide to go into that new Jewish deli and order a traditional kosher knish. Are you going to be OK if it is filled with pulled pork? I mean, by your reasoning, there's no reason a chef's kosher meal should be kosher since there's no reason to respect the culture or traditions . . .\n\nBy your reasoning, a Jew who goes into such a deli should have no reason to be upset that they ordered a traditional kosher meal and got something that was in fact, not traditional and not kosher. According to you, maybe they don't even need to be served a meal?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcln08d",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Are you OK with vegan restaurants serving dishes labeled as vegan that contain milk, eggs, and meat?'\n\nNo... but that's an outright lie/deception/false advertising. That's like taking a DVD case of Land before time and putting the disk for Sasha Gray XXX-rated Bukkake gangbang in and then renting it to a family for their movie night.\n\n'Failing to respect culture and tradition as a chef means failing to respect the ingredients, methods, and techniques which make a dish that dish.'\n\nI just don't see the connection between ingredients and culture. German's don't own, or have a monopoly on beer, nor do the swiss with cheese with holes in it.\n\n\"Are you going to consider that to be \"good\" Chinese fried rice given that it was made without traditional methods, ingredients, or techniques and doesn't taste anything like what Chinese fried rice is supposed to taste like? \"\n\nYeah, I don't see why not. It's just a different rendition of it.\n\nTwo fantastic chinese chefs who have lived in China their whole life can serve me rice that tastes different after all. Why is it such a travesty of Jamie Oliver serves me a different take on it? I might not like it sure, but I don't see this as a problem with Oliver not 'respecting' the culture.\n\nIf he made a lousy dish, that is problem enough.\n\n\"Are you going to be OK if it is filled with pulled pork?\"\n\nIf I'm okay with eating pork? Sure. I don't see why that would be a problem. as long as they are not lying and sneaking pork in the food of non-pork eating people.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcljou1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcljru9",
                    "author": "carpshihord",
                    "body": "What was the context of the question? Something like, people putting pineapple on pizza? I've witnessed more than one Italian rage on about that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclm8kp",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" I've witnessed more than one Italian rage on about that.\"\n\nWhat really? I thought that was a joke that people got angry over that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcljru9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcllnzq",
                    "author": "awaythrowthatname",
                    "body": "Gordon is not saying that you need to know or understand the culture, just that you have an obligation as chef to *respect* the culture who's food you are cooking. When I make Polish food, I respect that their flavor profiles and ingredients and cooking choices came from their cultural circumstances in a certain way, and as a chef that helps me to elevate the food that I am creating. I would not think about a traditional polish dish and their flavors amd cooking method in the same way I would a traditional Chinese dish, or a traditional Moroccan dish, or a Traditional Peruvian dish.\n\nWhats the difference between a perogi, an empanada, a pastizzi, a samosa, a burek, or a dang Hot Pocket? They're all dough folded around a filling and cooked at the end of the day. It's the culture that they come from which defines and differentiates them, making them distinct in their doughs, fillings, and cooking preparation. And as a proper chef, one won't know the difference between them and how to make them without affording the cultures they originate in some respect",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclm6ak",
                    "author": "methyltheobromine_",
                    "body": "There's two ways to interpret this.\n\nThe culture itself? Who cares.\n\nThe culture as it relates to cooking? Learn it. Don't end up on one of Uncle Roger's videos.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclni3i",
                    "author": "Regular-Chapter-7101",
                    "body": "Well not is it only respectful towards the culture where the dish originated but it also results in better cooking and more authentic meals. I\u2019m REALLY good at cooking East Asian food. This is because I understand it and have invested a lot of time into learning it. I can skim through a recipe. That intuition comes from knowing the background and culture of many of these countries. How poverty may have influenced so for dishes from a certain region, the seasoning is more important than the meats or the vegetables. Or how in another region it\u2019s more common to have more variety in smaller portions. So if I were to prepare them in a more western way with only 1-2 different foods in a dish it wouldn\u2019t be as good as it may be too sweet, too heavy, too light, etc without the rest of the ensemble to balance it out.\n\nThis is the difference between authentic restaurants and restaurants the just copy the recipes for the aesthetic.\n\nIt directly impacts ur ability to not only prepare the dish itself but to make a meal in its entirety. It impacts your judgement and ur instincts in these matters. There\u2019s a reason why cultures cook the way they do and a cultures cooking has been developed for thousands of years to get to the point where it is today. In those thousands of years they figured out a symbiosis of how foods fit together, they created signature tastes, they built a meal.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jdayb1x",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"How poverty may have influenced so for dishes from a certain region, the seasoning is more important than the meats or the vegetables.\"\n\nWhy is that understanding of poverty necessary? Why can't you just understand that these ingredients work well with this seasoning?\n\nThat knowledge you have is an interesting fact but it's not necessary as far as I can tell.",
                    "date": "2023-03-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jclni3i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclnqv7",
                    "author": "Jebofkerbin",
                    "body": "There's two sides to this, moral and practical.\n\nOn the practical side, if you don't make an effort to understand what you are cooking and why it is the way it is, your much more likely to fuck it up and misrepresent what you are making. There's an Asian fusion place near me that has sashimi wontons on the menu, wontons are a type of cooked dumpling, sashimi is raw fish, by definition what they are serving is either not sashimi or not wontons. When you screw up like this you are doing a disservice to both your customers and the culture you have borrowed from, you promised authentic food and didn't deliver.\n\nThe moral side comes in when you start looking at the economic situation different chefs find themselves in. Where I live Chinese cuisine has a reputation of being cheap and unhealthy, fast food basically. This means that ethnically Chinese chefs struggle to open anything more upmarket than a simple takeaway because people refuse to pay higher prices for genuine Chinese food. White chefs on the other hand have no issue opening \"fusion\" restaurants that are upmarket and expensive and frequently do things like call any pork dish char siu, or the previously mentioned sashimi wontons.\n\nThe stigma around Chinese food isn't these chefs' fault, but they are taking ideas and recipes from a group, using them to profit from opportunities that the group is denied, and then not even having the respect to understand those ideas and recipes and cook them authentically. It's a pretty awful situation to willingly take part in and perpetuate.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclnxgs",
                    "author": "stansfield123",
                    "body": "A \"culture\" is the totality of knowledge accrued by a group of people who interact with each other with great frequency and over a long period of time (many generations). A recipe is part of a culture, same as all knowledge. To really understand a recipe, you have to understand the context in which it came to life: the wider culture. And if you like the recipe, you should also appreciate the culture, for producing it.\n\nOf course, that cuts both ways: I think people who drive cars or use computers have the same exact responsibility: to understand and respect the culture which produced those technologies.\n\nWhen this \"respect\" is a one way street, that's not really respect for culture, that's just pandering. With a bit of self loathing sprinkled in for extra flavor.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclpl1v",
                    "author": "freakishbehavior",
                    "body": "I think a lot of folks are branching out into areas that aren\u2019t relevant. He isn\u2019t talking about christianity or voodoo, or taking any other part of a culture. In those areas, sure, you should learn about the culture that started them, but good food is good food. If all you want to do is eat, you don\u2019t really need to learn anything but how to cook.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclq03r",
                    "author": "HideNZeke",
                    "body": "Food might just be food, but cuisine is a cornerstone part of almost every culture in the world. Understanding the culture is how you make the dish properly. Sure, if you are able to get the exact recipe from someone of the culture and copy it perfectly, it's probably fine, but over time, the further a food drifts from it's culture the more differences appear, sometimes from replacing ingredients with ones more readily available or just mixing in new ingredients that a different culture likes more. If a 5 star chef is to make a good rendition of the traditional dish, respecting the culture it came from is merely understanding the dish itself. The dish is the culture.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclqyfz",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "Respecting a dish and its culture is something that protects it from being perody'd, and it is very easy to make a lacklustre, inferior version of a cultural dish. So aside from an ethical point, it's just important for actually creating the dish authentically, not creating another americanized bastardization of a food that actually can be really amazing",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclrwe0",
                    "author": "cherflugen",
                    "body": "There is an obligation to respect the culture if you are profiting off of it imo otherwise no problems here",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclslkp",
                    "author": "Elderly_Bi",
                    "body": "Gordon Ramsey is an absolutist. \n\nIt is a positive attribute to understand the culture behind the food, so you don't just throw Pineapples on Pizza. Your culinary, technical skills are complimented by familiarity with the culture, but not trumped by them.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclz4f5",
                    "author": "GameProtein",
                    "body": "A chef isn't a cook. Being paid to cook isn't the same as doing it for free. Chefs need to be respectful when they recreate food because many casual diners will just assume that's what a particular cuisine is like. They have a responsibility to either recreate authentically or make it clear that they aren't ex. labeling the dish fusion. \n\n>Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo?\n\nYou wouldn't but you surely shouldn't be selling Pad Thai where all of the ingredients and cooking methods are inauthentic. Largely because that's not what anybody who orders is actually paying you for. \n\nRespecting the culture = not just doing whatever you want while still calling it by the name of the source dish in a professional setting. Nobody cares what people do at home.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclz9nj",
                    "author": "Unkuni_",
                    "body": "I also want to point out than not practicing a culture doesn't mean disrespecting it. You can respect a culture while not partaking in it. so you can make a dish non traditional way if you like, this wouldn't be not respecting",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jclzr9j",
                    "author": "thisiswrongtool",
                    "body": "Even putting aside the deeper religious, spiritual, heritage, and cultural depth of one versus the other....\n\nIf I made a fanfic about how Darth Vader and Palpatine had a mad and passionate love affair, how it was, in fact, their torrid lust for one another that drove Anakin to the Dark Side, and it was only when Obi Wan caught the two of them in flagrante delicto that things REALLY went south and Anakin went mad with desperate longing for his One True Senator...... You might have Opinions.\n\nIf I wrote that fanfic and claimed it was cannon because it's just using the characters and what really ARE stories anyway, and Star Wars is Star Wars who really cares, you might have Even More Opinions. \n\nIf I wrote that fanfic without actually bothering to watch any of the films because everything I'd learned about Star Wars came from societal osmosis, you might have Still Other Opinions. \n\nUltimately, I'm within my rights to do all of that, but any SW fan is going to look at me with disgusted side-eye for insisting that it's cannon, and even more so if I don't bother actually watching the source material before putting pen to paper.\n\nCulture encompasses the stories people tell themselves about themselves, and part of those stories include the food. \n\nIf you want to make peeps-flavored curry, have at it. If you want to make kimchi but it's cherries, actually, nobody's stopping you. But food gets considerably better when you look at the source material, even just a little. Just like fanfic.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm1mnz",
                    "author": "SaberTruth2",
                    "body": "I think if you don\u2019t respect the culture Taco Bell turns into \u201cMexican Food\u201d. When in reality we took a few common ingredients and Americanized the shit out if it and now people in like the Midwest thing that\u2019s what they eat south of the border. For whatever it\u2019s worth, Taco Bell is a great hangover meal. But I live in the Southwest and I don\u2019t consider that Mexican foo.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm24c6",
                    "author": "Legitimate-Record951",
                    "body": "If you're borrow other peoples culture, you're also, in some sense, borrowing part of their identity. And if you do this lazily without putting in much work, it will sometimes seem disrespectful.\n\nLet's say I went to a restaurant in the US and discovered that they served sol\u00e6g. I try to order it, but the chef just look at me confused, because he have no clue how it is pronounced. I try translating it to english (\"Uh, I want sun egg\") but he doesn't know what it means either, so I ends up just pointing to it on the menu. I also find out he think of it as \"Scandinavian\", without knowing which country it is from, let alone which region of said country, don't know what to drink with it (beer, obviously), and don't grasp the social settings either (you never eat sol\u00e6g alone, it's more sort of a hillbilly ritual)\n\nAt some point I think I would feel that he hasn't quite *earned* it. If he was just some average Joe it would be one thing, but in a restaurant setting it feels kind of wrong.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmdo79",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Let's say all that happened, but the sol\u00e6g was perfect.\n\nWhat's the problem?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcm24c6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm2rc2",
                    "author": "Dazzling_Outcome_436",
                    "body": "Food has more cultural significance than just its flavor. In Western cultures, food is judged almost entirely on its flavor (and to some degree, its presentation). Certain foods are associated with certain occasions (e.g. wedding cake) but the association is weak enough that if someone sold wedding cake flavored ice cream, people would only care that it tasted good. And we don't even hold apple pie sacred, despite the fact that we use it as a metaphor for America's virtues. (We've had an entire movie whose highlight was the sexual violation of a pie. It was a big hit.)\n\nHowever, this doesn't necessarily hold for other cultures. If a culture has religious significance attached to a food, or if it is taboo to serve that food on random occasions, or if there is a specific ritual purpose to the food, working it into a menu can be offensive.\n\nImagine how Catholics would feel if somebody made a splendid dish using consecrated hosts. It wouldn't matter how tasty it was, Catholics would be justifiably mad.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmd6xq",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\" If a culture has religious significance attached to a food,\"\n\nI do not think anyone outside of said religion has any moral duty to respect any religious significance. Trying to imply they do is immoral.\n\n\"Imagine how Catholics would feel if somebody made a splendid dish using consecrated hosts. It wouldn't matter how tasty it was, Catholics would be justifiably mad.\"\n\nI don't care. Catholics also didn't like Marilyn Manson or the Exorcist.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcm2rc2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm7drk",
                    "author": "drenzorz",
                    "body": "This seems like a misunderstanding. The point is to know the history and culture of the cuisine not the people. You don't need to respect the political/religious/etc history of the place, what you need to know is the history of the dish and why and how the recepies have changed. The reasons that influenced how it is prepared the way it is etc.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm7lln",
                    "author": "BstintheWst",
                    "body": "In Gordon Ramsay's case, it's because he has more reverence for food and the people who make it.  Not saying that you should be more like him, but based on what you wrote, it sounds like his passion for food is at a different level than yours. \n\nAlso, the appropriation of other cultures is only a problem (in my view) when theft occurs.  For example, if a well-known chef learns about a new dish, claims that they came up with it, and makes money from that when in fact, it was the product of another culture. \n\nThis gets to another difference between Ramsey and yourself.  He makes his living by cooking, so he is in a position where that kind of theft could reasonably occur.  \n\nIf we're just talking about non-chefs I agree with you.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmc2ry",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I like to think I love food quite a bit. No one on this form probably likes food as much as him, but I love to cook and learn new recipies.\n\nI also like learning about history and different cultures, I just think it's a bit holier than thou to be all 'Oh yes, you *MUST* know this if you are a chef.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcm7lln"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm7y0a",
                    "author": "Pristine-Lobster-285",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think it\u2019s necessary for a chef to understand the cultural background of the dish they are preparing. However, I do think a cultural understanding has the potential to incredibly increase the authentic quality of the dish. Pizza is a good example. It is Italian sure, but it has been so thoroughly americanized that it is almost a completely different food from its Italian root. If I wanted to open a restaurant that appealed to that pallet I would need to better understand where it came from. Is the dough hand tossed or pan made? Should I drown it in cheese or be sparse with toppings? For that matter, are any toppings like pineapple acceptable to include? I wouldn\u2019t be able to flavor it to my tastes because I did not grow up Italian - I\u2019d have to research the Italian culture surrounding food to understand that authentic flavor profile.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm8g3h",
                    "author": "Pristine-Lobster-285",
                    "body": "In other respects, perhaps a smaller example. If you were to be asked to prepare something Kosher. It would be necessary to understand the cultural reasons behind Jewish food rules. Like how you can\u2019t cook cheese and meat together but you can still serve them separately. But that\u2019s a niche example.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmbvyl",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"It would be necessary to understand the cultural reasons behind Jewish food rules.\"\n\nNo it wouldn't. Just know how to make the specific dish.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcm8g3h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcm8qd9",
                    "author": "Maxfunky",
                    "body": "You're not respecting the food itself, your respecting the culture.  Why wouldn't you respect other cultures?  Do you want them to respect yours?  This just seems like simple \"Golden Rule\" territory.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmbta5",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Do you want them to respect yours?\"\n\nI don't care what non-Canadians think of Canadian culture.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcm8qd9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmd6eu",
                    "author": "chefanubis",
                    "body": "The culture gives context to the dish and makes you understand why the recipe its the way it is.\n\nThe examples are countless, why specific cooking techniques are used, ingredients, flavors, all comes from the historical context. \n\nFor example you could tell me to prepare something Vietnamese for you without giving me a recipe and I would know what to do cause I know why they cook the way they do and why certain ingredients are used and to what end, all of that comes from knowing the culture, it's invaluable. And it's not just blind respect, thing are the way they are due to generations of trial an error, it's it not arbitrary.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmdcu7",
                    "author": "Background-Pipe-733",
                    "body": "I believe there's a difference between \"knowing the culture/history\" and \"respecting the culture/history.\"\n\nYou don't need to know how Pad Thai was originally created or eaten, but you shouldn't go around saying their recipe is gross for using too much mung beans and oil, here's a better, more civilized version that you came up with (that's an example, not saying that's how you really feel.)",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcme9gn",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I mean I don't have a problem with that, save for the potential racism loaded into the word 'civilized.'\n\nBut hey, if you think mug beans are gross and you think your Pad Thai is better I don't see the problem.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcmdcu7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmfpju",
                    "author": "guardian416",
                    "body": "You can do what you want but given the choice I would go to the traditional restaurant over the one thats not.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmhu05",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "What if the one that is not has Marco Pierre White in the kitchen?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jcmfpju"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmjf0c",
                    "author": "redditaccount0724",
                    "body": "You seem to be implying the word \"respect\" has an implication that encyclopedic knowledge of the subject in question is required. I disagree that that's how it's being used in this case. I think what Gordon is getting at is that to make a cultural dish, you should treat its history and the culture that created it with dignity. As an analogy, most people are polite to strangers they know nothing about. We don't have to know each other's life stories to grant each other the decency of treating each other like human beings.\n\nWhen you're making a dish from another culture, you don't need to know the exact city of origin, how the ingredients were discovered, the country's history, etc. That's a question of knowledge, not respect. It might make more sense to think about what DISrespecting a dish looks like. As an Asian growing up in the Midwest, I've seen and heard plenty of comments about how \"gross\" certain Asian dishes and ingredients are, and it's dehumanizing. And now, to see people on social media making dishes I love while substituting every ingredient that makes it what it is, because it's \"disgusting\" and \"who would ever eat that\" - THAT'S what disrespecting cultural food is, in my opinion. It's perfectly fine to adapt a dish to your taste, or to make it without knowing it's exact story and origins. But it's not right when people who go out for sushi every week tell American-born Asians to \"go back to where they came from.\" Respecting culture is more about just respecting human dignity in general than HAVING to have some specific knowledge about it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmjyde",
                    "author": "Prim56",
                    "body": "Recipes are not so much about following the steps as they are about understanding their purpose. If you want to make a good or better recipe you need to know why certain parts are needed and what their purpose is. Otherwise i could just replace spaghetti with rice and make a \"spaghetti bolognaise\".",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmp9nh",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"Recipes are not so much about following the steps as they are about understanding their purpose.\"\n\nHard disagree. This is just chemistry when we get right down to it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcmjyde"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmnpzv",
                    "author": "14ccet1",
                    "body": "I mean, I suppose there\u2019s no hard obligation, but do you really aspire to be someone who doesn\u2019t learn about people different from themselves?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmocyy",
                    "author": "SaltFatAcidHate",
                    "body": "Take chicken and waffles. Great dish for anyone who cooks, either at home or as a diner line cook or somewhere more upscale. How do you prepare it? Some will imagine it as Southern soul food, some will make gravy like they do in Amish country, and some will try to emulate what they ordered in some trendy city restaurant. Fundamentals of food prep, like chopping properly and knowing how to pair ingredients, only require some sense of skill. But context matters. The culinary roots, the experience, the familiarity \u2014 I think to some extent we all use those references.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmpgjv",
                    "author": "Tarnarmour",
                    "body": "Dude I'm 100% on your side. I think humans have a weird way of personifying abstract groups of people, and we then feel empathetically angry at credit being \"stolen\" from a personification of a culture. In reality a culture is just a general trend that helps describe a group of people, it's not a person who's intellectual property can be stolen. \n\nFood has intrinsic taste and qualities totally independent of cultural context, it should not be necessary to consider culture while enjoying / creating food. And I agree with your summation at the end, there's absolutely nothing wrong with appreciating a culture. It's just totally not necessary to cook something.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmswth",
                    "author": "SlytherinSilence",
                    "body": "Does OP not realize that food *is* a huge part of culture?\n\nCulture consists of traditions, language, history, foods, religions, artistry, history etc.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmt3te",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Yeah I do. So what?",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcmswth"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmtlp7",
                    "author": "writenicely",
                    "body": "As an Indo-American woman who was born in the USA and raised here (and am a Muslim too), I wasn't given the choice to not learn about the white people who made the country I live in, but I was made to. I was indocterinated to pledge my allegiance to a flag during the 2000s era when I was a kid and people of my faith were being collectively deemed terrorists by the white people who passed something called the patriot act. They sent in agents into mosques. \n\n.............................................................................\n\nIt has nothing to do with being a chef and everything to do with being a decent human being who acknowledges that you're not the center of everything, and that you're participating in enjoying something that other people came up with. It shouldn't burden you. Its part of acknowledging reality and having a sense of humility within a global world, or else you're just one of those people who goes \"I INVENTED WHIPPED COFFEE!\", seeking to claim and profit from something without providing respect to the culture where that thing originally came from and how it was created, what its purposes were, why and how its part of someone's lifestyle. And the reason why is because we live in an increasingly smooth world, where everything is being commodified and stripped and made artificially, and we don't even understand half the shit we do or the significance/ symbolism behind it.  No one is forcing you to take an entire fucking cultural studies course on how a burrito was created, but you literally couldn't have said anything at all and come across less as a willfully ignorant person.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmttjn",
                    "author": "Plenty-Green186",
                    "body": "Someone who understands a culture from which a type of food is from is better able to understand the quality of ingredients needed, what adaptations or substitutions works enhance it vs what is gauche.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcmw1tp",
                    "author": "demonspawn9",
                    "body": "Food isn't food. You are a cook or a chef, there is a difference by miles. A deep understanding of the way foods are prepared and their significance in a culture can be the difference between an okay dish and a phenomenal dish. It's about the moment you stop stirring, the extra pinch of a spice, why grandma x always added a bit of unrelated spice and stood over stove watching her sauce all day. A lot of people never experience really good food because it's not readily available, much less knowledge on how to prepare it and it's a loss.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn1hmq",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "A chef serves food. To serve a particular dish should require respect of the particular culture from which that dish comes if its not native to your culture. \n\nThat being said making \"fusions\" or some kind of twist or variation on a dish should not require so. Food is food. \n\nA particular dish is a manifestation of how a particular culture has developed with food. Food is food but different cultures do food different ways. \n\nSo if you're trying to recreate a particular dish then you are trying to recreate what a particular culture has come up with. You are looking at that culture and deciding you want that dish. \n\nIf you're creating a fusion or twist or variation or just incorporating a specific style or technique into your own dish then that's your culture. A chef can be expected to be paying a respect in their own way as a chef by working with and choosing to work with those techniques or ingredients and shouldn't be required to show additional respect beyond maybe acknowledging the influence in the name or menu description. \n\nIn the end I guess respect is acknowledgement and understanding. Both cases of trying to recreate a particular dish or making your own fusion or variation dish require respect but different kinds. Recreation should require probably what Gordon Ramsey was talking about. Fusions or variations in original dishes doesn't require what Gordon Ramsey was talking about but does still require a simple acknowledgement in the form of usually just an acknowledgement",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn1k74",
                    "author": "hammyhamm",
                    "body": "Think of it as this: what an American considers to be Carbonara is not what an Italian considers it to be, because Americans use Bacon and other ingredients instead of the traditional ones. Does this mean it\u2019s still carbonara? Are we diluting the meaning of the food name by making something completely different and calling it that?\n\nI can see why the EU are so eager to protect names of foodstuffs as protected to their regions (champagne, cheeses etc) - it\u2019s in order to protect the heritage of their processes and also to prevent competition with products that may use the name but be nothing like it, sullying the quality that the Demi-\u201cbrand\u201d should otherwise represent.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn60r7",
                    "author": "lucax55",
                    "body": "Why did my dad see bread made of brick and rubble dust on display in a muesem in Stalingrad?  \n\nDid Russians think it equated to simple \"chemistry\" that it might taste good? Or is their blatantly obvious context, history and reasons for such a food to even exist that I've left out to illustrate this.\n\nFood is so inherently political, based not just on what's avaliable in the geographic area, but what's avaliable to certain classes or groups of people.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn6ua9",
                    "author": "Sseae",
                    "body": "Responding to this topic would be like explaining how to tie shoelaces in words. There is a clear answer, but explaining would challenge the limits of communication, let alone the minefield of psychology.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcn821a",
                    "author": "wowhowbizzare",
                    "body": "When I hear respect the culture, I\u2019m thinking don\u2019t make something that already exist rename it and pass it off like you created it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnghlj",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I mean of course.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcn821a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcniiml",
                    "author": "its_alot_",
                    "body": "Food is not just food. It invokes memories, strengthens connections, unifies, carries energy and stories. \n\nA culture happens to include food as part of its basic building blocks, along with language, dress, design and customs. You might as well have said, \"It's just a culture, so what\"\n\nIt's a unique question, a curious one. Why do we guard precious family recipes, for example? I've heard chefs describe a special meal as a time machine. Its flavours transporting the diner to another place and time. \n\nFood sometimes is just so, but when it comes to meals and dishes from another culture, if you're going to make them, it pays to make an effort by not insulting the culture. Esp. if you're going to make it public.\n\nYour question reminds me of those influencers who cook food from another culture to brand it and sell it for profit. Do you think that's respectful? Aren't we lucky to learn the cuisines of other places, places with their own histories? The origin story matters and always has. Respect for that enriches the dish, pays homage to its home, keeps the culture alive. \n\nTo not be respectful of that, is simply trying to kill a culture.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnogsq",
                    "author": "MobiusCube",
                    "body": "This falls apart when you realize it's common for different cultures to have similar types or styles of foods. All of a sudden, anything different than your grandma's recipe becomes \"offensive to ___ culture\" and food stagnates.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcniiml"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnom68",
                    "author": "But-WhyThough",
                    "body": "Based take",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnuiue",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I've heard some good counters admittedly.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcnom68"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnp6ck",
                    "author": "rhb4n8",
                    "body": "This is the attitude that puts bacon Alfredo on menus as carbonara",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnuhtt",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "What?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcnp6ck"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnr3ki",
                    "author": "MusicalColin",
                    "body": "Posting in agreement: \n\nChefs do not need to \"respect\" (whatever that means) whatever culture's food they're using. Inspiration from other cultures is a good thing and it's how we get new kinds of food. You can go to countries all over the world and see what they've done with American cuisine just like you can come to America and see what we've done with cuisine from all over the world. \n\nAlso, \"appropriation\" discourse creates a toxic culture of gatekeeping in which only chefs from certain cultures are \"allowed\" to make certain kinds of food.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcnzsbm",
                    "author": "PIKEEEEE",
                    "body": "Traditional dishes can be cultural. If you served a traditional meal to a person from the country the dish is from not taking care to replicate the traditional and cultural procedures will ruin the food. Food might be food for someone who doesn\u2019t know how it should be, but it quite literally is disrespectful to butcher a dish and serve it proudly to someone who does know.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jco171t",
                    "author": "Funtimes856",
                    "body": "Modern culinary (cooking) has evolved from eating to sustain yourself to an experience. That experience has all the nuance of today's culture (politics, normal behaviors, etc.). \n\nIf I were to serve you kosher wine would you enjoy it? What about a still born chicken egg (Balut)? Would you enjoy it more if I gave you the context and history behind the dish?\n\nAs a result, understanding the context for why people eat certain foods in certain ways is important in order to serve it appropriately.  It increases the experience of the food, giving you more enjoyment. The more enjoyment you receive from the cooking the better the chef. Its the difference between good chefs and GREAT chefs. Its not only the excellent preparation, its the presentation and setting.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jco1zcx",
                    "author": "Goblin_CEO_Of_Poop",
                    "body": "Gordon Ramsey is more of  TV personality than he is a chef. You can see that from how he trains people alone. Ive worked in restaurants that would have fired him for some of the dumbass shit he thinks is functional.\n\nHes also full of shit. No restaurant gets everything fresh. In order for everything to be fresh it needs to not just be locally available but locally available at a high quality.\n\nDont get me wrong I love his shows and I think hes hilarious. I get its fake. Its not some big secret. It is entertaining though.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jco4fje",
                    "author": "Kianoue",
                    "body": "The people who know the culture make the food the way it was suppose to which is always better. knowing a thing or two and abiding by there cooking habits is respecting the culture in its own sense. I think you\u2019re taking what he said a little far he might of meant respect the ethics of their culinary practices which he\u2019s right.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcode0l",
                    "author": "hannahst2",
                    "body": "A white american or englishman wrote this.\n\nIts easy when your country/culture has stolen all the food they call great. Its just food to you. But so many foods came out of using what was at hand, and not being wasteful. To make an amazing meal that has passed through generations and generations is to be respected, even it that simply means ackowleding and appreciating the culture these foods came from.\n\nAlso, modern shipping has made it much easier to obtain certain ingredients, but you have no idea how difficult it is to procure/obtain certain ingredients (see Saffron).\n\nThe internet has allowed for recipes to be shared, that may have even been a special family recipe, you can now just have a go at near enough any recipe you want from anywhere in the world.\n\nWithout these things, think how much you would appreciate a very special and rare dish you would never be able to eat again or recreate yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpudo1",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "\"A white american or englishman wrote this.\"\n\nYou say that like it's a bad thing.\n\nAlso, this sounds like the kind of thing a white person with too much to prove would say.\n\n\"Its easy when your country/culture has stolen all the food they call great\"\n\nHow the fuck do you steal a recipe? What, cause someone in Italy had the idea to put marinara sauce on pasta, it's 'stealing' when someone in England does it?\n\n\"even it that simply means ackowleding and appreciating the culture these foods came from.'\n\nWhat does that even mean?\n\n\"that may have even been a special family recipe, you can now just have a go at near enough any recipe you want from anywhere in the world.\"\n\nAnd this is a bad thing?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcode0l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcoksto",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Box2242",
                    "body": "Its like saying why wouldn't I steal someones idea if im gonna make it better",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcoqez5",
                    "author": "calvinballing",
                    "body": "Math major here.  Most math that the average person learns in school is so old that we don\u2019t know a lot about the specific individuals who first invented/discovered it, or it\u2019s so common that lots of different people came up with it.  At this point that basic math has been pre-digested by your culture for you. But for cutting edge mathematical research, you\u2019re going to want to read the papers from other mathematicians who have worked in that area, or if they are still alive, ideally get a chance to discuss the field with them directly.  You will be able to learn faster when:\n- you know more about what has already been tried and didn\u2019t work and \n- why the things that do work actually work\nTheoretically, you could only look at theorems proved in papers, and not the steps to get there, but in practice, you\u2019re not going to be able to learn as much or as fast if you do this.\n\nSimilarly, with food, you can make a lot of tasty food yourself without paying attention to culture.      Especially if you follow the basic scripts laid out by your own culture (which may have already borrowed things from other cultures). But if you want to innovate, you can learn faster if you\u2019re willing to learn about the context other food has been produced in, and what people have tried in the past.  \n\nAnd it\u2019s a lot easier to learn from someone you respect.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcoqk00",
                    "author": "timohtie",
                    "body": "If someone does/makes something that is local to where you're from and lists that as being representative of your culture, wouldn't you reject it if it only bares resemblance at face-value but actually doesn't show understanding of what that in your culture represents?\n\nIf I go to a Cantonese restaurant, I expect to be served Cantonese food. For a chef to make proper Cantonese food, they should have some knowledge on the Cantonese cuisine and part of that is the culture behind the food - how it's prepared, served, eaten, which produce is commonly used and how dishes may vary between regions.\n\nA chef doesn't have to stick to the recipe, but any alterations should logically fit with the characteristics of the Cantonese cuisine. A novel approach to a Cantonese dish should still show aspects in thought or customs of the Cantonese cuisine to be named and appreciated as. Otherwise, it'd be dishonest to say it's representative of that, rather than loosely inspired by it right?\n\nIt's a bit like how book fans dislike movies that state they're based on the book when it doesn't respect the main themes and developments, and only overlaps in the main characters' names so to say. It may be inspired by the book, but to fly the banner of it would be dishonest to what it actually represents.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpeins",
                    "author": "IcyContribution8432",
                    "body": "You don't have to respect it to cook, but you do have to respect it to be a Chef.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpvnhs",
                    "author": "CareTaker1213",
                    "body": "There is a difference between cooks and chefs, and respect for the culture of food is what truly separates them. If you've never had the opportunity to work under a trained chef I would suggest finding one if you truly want to understand. Words on the Internet will never compare to the experience and knowledge you will gain.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcqipbn",
                    "author": "PhDinMisanthropy",
                    "body": "Ok",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr5n0c",
                    "author": "Livid_Department_816",
                    "body": "At least in the US, & a lot of other places, culture is a matter of very small differences. We live next door to friends & family. We grow up eating at whichever house has food or company (ideally both) we like. \n\nThe spice put in a dish will vary from house to house. How can one not have respect for a flavor that brings to mind something you\u2019d have never tried if not for the imagination of those who passed down their ancestors knowledge?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr6ak5",
                    "author": "Livid_Department_816",
                    "body": "You\u2019re studying food? What makes you say \u201cfood is food\u201d?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr6k4d",
                    "author": "Livid_Department_816",
                    "body": "You may consider that your biological siblings have a different culture than you. Why do you like different foods than them?",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcubzio",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Box2242",
                    "body": "How can more men be single than women?? Considering many people are straight shouldn't statistics be more close ?",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcz5yqu",
                    "author": "2theL3ft2theL3ft0H",
                    "body": "Nobody really cares about any of this unless you're taking ownership or another cultures stuff and passing it off as your own so this post doesn't really make any good points",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd0pjdm",
                    "author": "DSMRick",
                    "body": "\"History of Mathematics\" was a required course for my math degree. There was an entire chapter about the Pythagoreans, what they believed and how that influenced their contributions to mathematics.  \nMaybe that is just a bad example, but I think experts in almost any discipline are going to have an understanding of the history of their discipline. I don't think there is a subject matter you could get a degree in that doesn't have a \"history of\" class even at the entry level.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11tx1st",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I think that this is something I once heard Gordon Ramsay say, where a person asked him \"Does a chef need to respect the culture that a food comes from?\" To which Gordon answered 'Yes, absolutly . Chef's have a responsibility to do so.'\n\nI don't see why this is the case. Food is food. Just because a culture far away from you came up with a certain kind of food doesn't mean that I owe it to that culture or those people to understand anything, or even respect anything about them.\n\nMuch of our modern mathematics is based on thinkers from the Golden Age of Islam, who's work was taken from the greeks, and then would go on to influence later mathematicians. But I sure as heck do not need, nor would anyone say that I am obligated to learn Islamic or Arabic history, learn anything about the Islamic religion, learn any arabic, or even know the names of the specific mathematics who's techniques I'm learning.\n\nI mean sure I know the name Pythagoras, but I couldn't tell you anything about him beyond that he was Greek and probably a pagan. And he's the *only* one who's name I even know. There are probably hundreds of other mathematicians who's work informed what I was taught in school, and I don't need to know about any of them.\n\nWhy should food be any different? Why would I need to give a crap about anything regarding Thai history/culture to realize that orange, spice, and cashews are a fantastic combo? Why would I need to learn anything about Italy to appreciate a good pasta and red wine?\n\nI'm not saying it's *bad* to know these things of course. A richer understanding of history and the world around you is a good thing in and of itself. But it's not any kind of *obligation*. So I don't see a problem with a chef cooking 'authentic' cuisines and having zero interest in learning about that part of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-03-17",
                    "score": 372,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I don't see why a chef or cook needs to understand or respect the 'culture' from where a recipe came from.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11tx1st/cmv_i_dont_see_why_a_chef_or_cook_needs_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd6ac3c",
                    "author": "Redditardus",
                    "body": "I would counter this by saying that, yes, indeed, you do need to learn something about the mathematicians and their culture. Makes learning math much more interesting and appreciate the history for the world. Of course, not seriously in depth, but at least some basic knowledge. I have studied math myself, but also history and philosophy, so I can make the connections, which is interesting. Development of the sciences has many parallels to other social issues and technology at the time.\n\nGreeks had many other philosophical pursuits than mathematics, surely you have heard of Aristotle and Plato? But even their writings have a direct relation to math, let's say, in Aristototle's Physics. Plato's Academy used to say \"Let none enter who hasn't studied geometry\". But I suppose it would be good to write today that \"Let none enter who haven't studied philosophy\", since it is the Queen of Sciences, and so few have understand it or have thoroughly studied it. Not to mention that Pythagoras apparently had a secret sect based around some religious beliefs of mathematics. Surprising quite how advanced concepts they were able to grapple with so early on.\n\nDevelopment of technology always has an impact on society. So has science. Nothing is more dangerous than a scientist who is ignorant of the larger context and a social environment in which he lives on. He is like a person in control of nuclear bomb but doesn't understand its peril. \n\nYour viewpoint is arrogant and self-centered. Our society has influences from many cultures, and it is good to acknowledge how each of them has their own role to fill. No man is an island, no culture either. \n\nBesides, gastronomy has a much closer relationship to the culture that surrounds it than mathematics. It would be as pointless as to say that you don't need to learn about Roman history if you would like to learn Latin. Eating is a social event, usually done together. In fact, it could be the most integral part of a country's culture, deciding largely how the society is structured.",
                    "date": "2023-03-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11tx1st"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11uoe35",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                "date": "2023-03-18",
                "score": 33,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcp4z35",
                "author": "Kanturaw",
                "body": "The biggest problem is that it is anti competitive. 1 ghost kitchen can list 20-30 restaurants in your area, which just drowns out local business listings that only have one listing, If it were enforced to be a 1 kitchen, 1 listing that would be fine. Just put all items on the same menu. \n\nAdditionally, with a ghost kitchen, if a certain listing gets bad reviews, they can just nuke that listing and launch it under new brand, which is deceitful at best and fraudulent at worst.",
                "date": "2023-03-18",
                "score": 34,
                "parent_id": "11uoe35"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcq774n",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "\u0394 I think you make a strong point, that one large company can pump out dozens of brands and this could be anti-competitive, so I definitely believe there should be a lot more regulation of the industry.",
                "date": "2023-03-18",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "jcp4z35"
            },
            {
                "id": "jcq7d3e",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kanturaw ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Kanturaw)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-03-18",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jcq774n"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcozdre",
                    "author": "RascalRibs",
                    "body": "The only issue I have with it is that companies are being deceitful about it.  Anytime you try to trick your customer,  I'd say that's a problem.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 44,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcozw9o",
                    "author": "gburgwardt",
                    "body": "But people are morons and need to be tricked sometimes\n\nFor example, eating the\"pink slime\" is good because it efficiently uses the whole chicken and makes good protein cheaper for everyone. But you have to dress it up as a nugget to make people want to eat it\n\nOr tricking people into trying something new that is intimidating but good (tons of food falls in this category - personally, shellfish and really most seafood)",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": -20,
                    "parent_id": "jcozdre"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp4sm3",
                    "author": "Full-Professional246",
                    "body": "From what I can tell, a ghost kitchen is merely a delivery/take out only resteraunt. \n\nI also hate to break this to you, this concept is not new. It started with Pizza decades ago. This concept is very similar to fast food in food courts and airports too. Nothing new.\n\nThis model is really complimentary to the traditional dining room service model for a restaurant. There's a demand for it therefore there is a market. It is in no way suggesting traditional restaurants with dining areas are going away.\n\nTo the next question of shared kitchens themselves. This too already exists and has for a while at airport food courts. It is not nearly as popular as you may think because there is not as much to be gained in scale as you might think. Food storage - coolers and freezers - are likely the biggest savings. But prep areas would still be restaurant specific, cooking appliances would be restaurant specific. The employees would be restaurant specific. \n\nIf your concept is one 'restaurant' serving food of different styles - that is still just a single restaurant and they do actually exist today. Many restaurants in a small space exist too - called food courts.\n\nLastly, your concept of 'sharing a building' - the 1980's called and mentioned something called a 'shopping mall'. A big building with subdivided spaces.....",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwt5nn",
                    "author": "pipocaQuemada",
                    "body": "There's two particular recent innovations in ghost kitchens people are upset about\n\n\nThe first is putting 40 or 50 \"different restaurants\" on door dash running out of a single kitchen with a single set of chefs preparing all of them, serving identical food.  They make one fish sandwich, sold under two dozen names at the assorted door dash stores.\n\nThe second is companies like Applebee's making doordash ghost kitchens.  It's still Applebee's food made in Applebee's kitchens by Applebee's cooks, but they don't think you'd buy it if they labeled it Applebee's so they call it cosmic wings or some shit like that.\n\nNo one has a problem with local startup restaurants starting a ghost kitchen in a shared industrial kitchen space, but that's not really how the recent glut of ghost kitchens has worked.\n\nThe current set of ghost kitchens is tech companies like nextbite.io and futurefoods.io, who market themselves to restaurants like\n\n> Virtual brands help restaurants boost sales and reach new customers without increasing operational costs. Restaurants use the same kitchen to fulfill orders from a new, delivery-only brand that\u2019s actively managed and marketed by Future Foods.\n\nWhich is significantly more deceptive than older style ghost kitchens where you have an entrepreneur making a single restaurant's menu out of a commercial kitchen space.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcp4sm3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp54kj",
                    "author": "ReadItToMePyBot",
                    "body": "Have you ever been inside of a kitchen during busy rush hour? Those places are cramped as they are, and they use all of the equipment very regularly, so in order to have a place where multiple companies are using the same kitchen during the same rush hour, you're gonna run into problems because you're going to need to likely get a much bigger kitchen with much more equipment in order for everyone to have space effectively, ruining the point of them working together. If they all had to use the same equipment, it would be a shitshow trying to coordinate who uses what and when.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp7l50",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "No I don\u2019t think they would all use the same equipment, they have different sets of equipment which would be restaurant specific, but they would be able to share storage spaces and cooling and power et cetera.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcp54kj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp55uj",
                    "author": "randomuser113432981",
                    "body": "If they were honest about it then maybe it wouldnt be underhanded.  Still not a good thing to have a monopoly pretending to be a bunch of small businesses.  I definitely fear we will see a total monopoly like that in my lifetime and there is nothing good about that for the consumer.  As for supermarkets I dont think Ive seen one in my life that wasn't a chain and I am very unhappy about that.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp8j2y",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "Yet when it comes to supermarkets, they are still much better value for the average consumer.\nMany of the rules around oligopolies don\u2019t apply to them, I\u2019m not saying a monopoly would be a good thing but I don\u2019t think it would be as damaging as some suggest, particularly as people always have other options including eating at hone.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcp55uj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp57x2",
                    "author": "FTR_iRage",
                    "body": "If I want Applebee's, I'll get Applebee's. If I want something new, I don't want to be tricked into ordering Applebee's",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp63e5",
                    "author": "SuspendDeezNutz06",
                    "body": "If I wanted Dennys I would fucking order Dennys. \n\nInstead, I ordered Wing Shming Bone Zone cause I've never heard of it and it sounded good, AND I GOT FUCKING DENNYS! \n\nIt's usually the crappiest restaurants that people would never touch otherwise resorting to this, too. \n\nPeople, and corporations, need to stop pretending to be something they're not.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 30,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jilrcd9",
                    "author": "TheBearOfSpades",
                    "body": "You ordered based on a name and a name alone, do your homework, it doesn't take long to look up a restaurant online.",
                    "date": "2023-05-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcp63e5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcp6jpy",
                    "author": "DocHolliday718",
                    "body": "Uh\u2026 what? I work at a Chili\u2019s, and we have 2. I had no idea anybody ever considered them \u201csinister\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpa5ak",
                    "author": "ChazzLamborghini",
                    "body": "Conceptually, there\u2019s nothing wrong with them but in practice they\u2019re misleading to the point of being deceitful. If a group of food truck owners want to go in on a kitchen space without a dining room to broaden their reach, I\u2019d be super down to give that a try via DoorDash or the like. Instead, Buffalo Wild Wings or Red Robin advertise as various different companies and sell the same frozen and flash-fried garbage with slightly different packaging. \n\nOne thing that has helped destroy the value of a capitalist economy is the illusion of choice. Consumers believe they\u2019re engaging in a competitive marketplace where the best practices and products will be rewarded. Instead huge conglomerates operate a ton of smaller labels utilizing shit products, exploitative labor practices, and massive mark-ups under the pretense of \u201cchoice\u201d. These kind of operations hurt the overall landscape of opportunity for small businesses. They flood the marketplace and make it harder for little people to compete and drive the value down across the board.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcrat45",
                    "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
                    "body": "In blind taste tests, most people can\u2019t tell the difference between Coke and Pepsi. More often than not, the most important aspect of a products taste is the packaging and marketing.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jcpa5ak"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpasm8",
                    "author": "SonkxsWithTheTeeth",
                    "body": "Have you seen Eddie Burback's video on ghost kitchens? If not, I recommend it, presented a lot of good info. To summarize, ghost kitchens are less safe than regular kitchens, are used to circumvent health codes, and often disguise themselves as small businesses in order to trick potential customers into buying from large restaurant chains.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpcjtu",
                    "author": "Helpfulcloning",
                    "body": "Some problems:\n\nA ghost kitchen is hard to be regulated as usually only the first kitchen gets inspected and the other ghost kitchens added do not.\n\nThis can be bad as the additional ghost kitchens may add different menu items (maybe with additional allergerns or requirments) and don\u2019t get inspected on them. Not good. It can also mean that a restaurant that got a bad rating can just switch to being the ghost kitchen with no inspection and sort of get around a lot of the red tape. Regulation hasn\u2019t caught up. \n\nAlso, it is a tactic for big companies to appear as small mom and pop restaurants to trick people buying from there. If lots of big companies do that and overwhelm the system (ie. one restaurant operating as say 40 different restaurants on uber eats) those actual small buisnesses get screwed massively.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpln10",
                    "author": "SlightlyJason",
                    "body": "That\u2019s not how ghost kitchens work\u2026 they operate the same as any food business that doesn\u2019t have customers. Inspections still requires.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcpcjtu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpd0fa",
                    "author": "ScaredFrog",
                    "body": "In addition to the practices often being misleading (selling the exact same sandwich through 12 \"different\" restaurants on a delivery app for example-- taking up space on the app away from small businesses), it also creates issues for people with food allergies.  I'm severely allergic to shellfish and I like to be able to see everything that's cooked in a kitchen to gauge how safe I will be to eat there.  If the kitchen is shared, I won't necessarily know that, and they could be cooking things in there that could potentially give me a reaction.  As ghost kitchens currently function, there aren't enough protections in place for people like me with allergies and it freaks me out.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpmoyf",
                    "author": "gehanna1",
                    "body": "This has happened to me twice. \n\nUsed door dash. Saw a restaurant I'd never heard of before and was like, \"Cool. Looks new, so let's support a new local business.\"\n\nI order from their menu. What I ordered was poorly prepared, and had things on it that weren't advertised on the menu listing. It felt thrown together. I Google it to see other reviews. Can't find any. Turns out it was a door dash ghost kitchen operating out of an O'Charleys after I had to do some actively hard digging. I left a poor review, but I couldn't find a phone number to call and complain. I could call OCharley's, but that feels weird since it technically wasn't OCharley's that pulled a fast one.\n\nAs I said, happened twice. Another restaurant, thought it was new, tried it, food was subpar.\n\nI just feel like it's a way to serve me ceappy food with impunity, and being tricked into thinking I'm supporting a new business in town when I'm actually not",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpq4ku",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Ruin208",
                    "body": "\"Ghost kitchens\" seems to be used to describe a few different scenarios:\n\n1. A recognized restaurant brand selling their menu under one or more new names,  with no real difference in offerings between brands.\n\nThis is underhanded because it treats customers as a resource to be manipulated. Many people like trying new restaurants, and these ghost kitchens seek to take advantage of this without offering anything new to the consumer. These ghost kitchens aren't offering any benefit to the consumer and should be illegal because they are deceptive. If they can't sell their product under their own name they should correct their problems and not be allowed to have a fresh start so easily. The only exception I can think of would be a higher end restaurant selling at a lower price point, where they are increasing business, but rebranding a good product in a way that saves the customer money in the end.\n\n2. A \"restaurant\" that is take out only and operates under multiple names on delivery apps, but shares core menu items under most/all names.\n\nOperating under multiple names like this should be illegal, because it is only done to increase sales, not because it actually adds anything to society or the customer in any way. It's using the customer, which is not how good businesses operate.\n\nIf you operate under different business names, the business should provide different experiences. KFC and taco bell can be in the same building, using shared kitchen space and be fine because each brand offers a different experience to the end consumer. If KFC sells fried chicken under 96 different names on delivery apps, they are deceptive because they are offering no benefit to the end consumer and indeed, if the consumer knows they hate KFC, you are trying to trick them into buying your product under those other brands.\n\n3. A group of typically startup chefs working out of the same space, cooperating to offer a larger menu. \n\nI see no problem with this as long as there is just one brand name for each main product line, with little to no crossover.\n\nI'm less certain how I feel about using different brands to do A/B testing on new products, price points, sales, etc. I think there are likely better ways to do this type of testing.\n\nOverall, a good business serves it's customers without trying to trick them into more purchases in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcq7jio",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "Isn\u2019t the goal of all businesses to make as much money as possible?\nI also think that one way a business can attract another demographic is to advertise under a new brand, this might get people who have never considered the company before to try it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "jcpq4ku"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcputvh",
                    "author": "ConansMonorail",
                    "body": "Sinister or underhanded...? Maybe not, but dishonest and annoying, absolutely.   \n   \nWhen I've eaten the BBQ Bourbon Bacon Burger from Dennys a bunch of times, and enjoy it, but decide I want to try a BBQ Bacon burger from another restaurant, so I open Doordash and see Burger Annex has a BBQ Bacon Burger, and I order it, and it turns out Burger Annex is just Dennys, and I'm eating the same burger I've had 100 times already, I'm not a happy customer.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpwuna",
                    "author": "Personal-Ocelot-7483",
                    "body": "I have no problem with a ghost kitchen selling door dash food without a dining room attached. My issue is when actual restaurants start selling their food under a fake name without telling anyone who is actually making the food.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcpwywi",
                    "author": "stewartm0205",
                    "body": "My Indian coworker used to say all the Indian buffet food was cook someplace in Queens and delivered in the morning. We used to eat at the all you can eat Indian Buffet restaurants on Lexington Ave in the 20s. He thought it was all the same food. I thought it was inexpensive and spicy.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcq4hj8",
                    "author": "Sargotto-Karscroff",
                    "body": "I see an issue if they are handling multiple menus.\n\n1 in order to keep quality you must know your menu and how each item should be, this becomes increasingly hard with larger menus. Back in the day places with large menus where frowned upon for this because the food was inconsistent or shit.\n\n2 larger contamination, food allergies and food poisoning risk for everyone.\n\n3 Ugly politics that branching from systemic issues that isn't their fault tbh.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcqr6o4",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "Are there real ghost kitchens? The ones by me on DD are the same 3.5 star Indian place making fake restaurants with a 5 star reviews and they just replace it when the ratings falls too low. There\u2019s like 12 Indian places out of that kitchen now.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcr2wqr",
                    "author": "threecatsandatuba",
                    "body": "I hate spending money on delivery for my family and the ghost kitchen turned out to be based out of IHOP.  I hate IHOP.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcrfbwu",
                    "author": "Inevitable-Holiday68",
                    "body": "The demand for the services provided by  dark stores, ghost kitchens etc is growing the supply\n\nPeople working there are just people/workers",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jctukch",
                    "author": "RoutineWolverine1745",
                    "body": "The issue with ghost kitchens is multifauceted.\n\n1. They trick you into thinking you ate buying from a mom and pop shop, when in reality its a ahady conglomeration.\n2. It maies health and safety inspection near virtually impossible, you can read up on the explosions(yes) and salmonella outbreaks that had happened in ghostkitchens.\n3. It gives the illusion of choice. When a ghostktichen houses 50 or more \u201drestaurants\u201d which in practice has the same dishes it gives an illusion of choice making our brains make even more unnecessary decision when we are already overloaded.\n\nThere is a really good youtube video about it [here](https://youtu.be/KkIkymh5Ayg)",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcx4brk",
                    "author": "Templarofsteel",
                    "body": "Part of the concern can also be about food safety. For one thing some ghost kitchens are basically a blank building with several places all being based from the same place and those places can also be wildly different types. The risk is that with that volume cross contamination is a big risk and also they may not be properly regulated or known about.   \n\n\nThe issue I have with existing brands doing ghost kitchens is both the market saturation issue but also if you have had problems with the place in the past anywhere from concerns about kitchen practices to food intolerance issues (maybe they use bacon grease in food prep or whatever) you don't realize that the other location will give you the same problems. It also gives outs to companies that have problems at local locations where people might not order from IHOP because they heard about the roaches they'll happily order from Thrilled Cheese.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxouq6",
                    "author": "Klover907",
                    "body": "This comes from someone that has no experience in a commercial kitchen. It would be a nightmare trying to separate costs and sales for each company within that kitchen, and then if they all had different menus?!?! Oh jesus!",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11uoe35",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think ghost kitchens are just the inevitable next step in the way that food is prepared, it makes a lot more sense to have dozens of smaller companies sharing a kitchen instead of them all having their own, especially when catering for the delivery market specifically., It definitely streamlines the delivery process for the drivers and is more cost-effective and efficient overall and if the food is good, who cares where exactly it was, prepaired, ?\nI imagine the same thing will happen to banks eventually, instead of having lots of different banks they will all share a building and, you, would, be able to visit different areas of the building to access different banks, and although people might think that it\u2019s strange I imagine people had similar reservations about the supermarket before it became as popular as it did.",
                    "date": "2023-03-18",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there is nothing sinister or underhanded about ghost kitchens",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11uoe35/cmv_there_is_nothing_sinister_or_underhanded/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jt927ta",
                    "author": "Maxx_Headroom85",
                    "body": "As someone who medically can't eat meat anymore. Having my food prepared right beside someone's steak is a serious issue for me.. regardless of it being in a separate pan with separate utensils.. there's still fat splatter, it's also in the air as a vapour.. I was a cook for years and I'd go home every day with a layer of grease all over me .. I can't have that on something claiming to be from a vegetarian restaurant but prepared in a ghost kitchen",
                    "date": "2023-07-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11uoe35"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "11vuppa",
                "author": "StoopSign",
                "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                "date": "2023-03-19",
                "score": 1092,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvomqem",
                "author": "Square_Foundation_35",
                "body": "it saddens me you don't understand how \"GangStalking\" works nor do other reddit users here. \"GS\"- or \"Gangstalking\" operations are carried out by GOVERNMENT Entities or other usually well funded \"Crime groups\" that have ties to a specific GOVERNMENT Connection, meaning, a well funded criminal, within an organized crime group, has ties to a corrupt Gov' agent in the FBI,CIA,DHS,DEA,ATF,IRS, ETC, and will use \"Psychotronic\" weapons, along with Injectable tracking implants, and 24/7 Advanced Hacking methods to \"Stalk\" the victim. Everyones situation is not the same, If you are indeed a REAL Target Individual, \n\nYou will have multiple Psychtronic weapons in your body, such as Ezekiel nanobot, this see's through walls and has ability to see up to a quarter mile in blue outlines. \n\nor \"beetles\" these swim to the victims eyes to then have 24/7 surveillance of the victims surroundings. they are very small, and injectable \n\nyou will also possibly have a \"hat\" on your brain, this is a Red Mesh Neurological Mapping item that is set up by other nanobots called \"Myler bugs\" these drag the net to your brain once injected, set it on tightly, and then this \"Hat\" transmits all your \"Feelings\" back to a sensory computer that downloads and monitors all your \"feelings\" this is for works with another Psychotronic weapon, it is ultimately used to Torture the victim. ITS NOT A MICROWAVE HAT like many think. \n\n​\n\nVoice To Skull, this is a Psychotronic weapon, that is used on Target Individuals, to Torture and drive them mad 24/7 its very effective, and old, i'm surprised many here don't talk about it, it can be an implant, various crime groups have outdated v2k implants that are injectable, and brought to the near ear by \"mylar bugs\" or \"workers\" and then someone can \"talk\" to you, but in GOVERNMENT entities there is another way of V2K which is called \"Hexy-ing\" someone, this is remote V2K and you don't need any implants to start \"hearing\" voices of another, Sadly the Healthcare system in the US Does indeed know your not Schizophrenic, the problem is they don't have the Capacity to deal with Psychtronic, Psychotronic weapons on a Large scale. and with Gangstalking manipulation its hard to defer US GOV from Private Criminal Gangstalking, In reality they are BOTH The same, just Different entities responsible for Torturing and driving the victim mad, or Killing them with Psychtronic weapons. ( Bio electric weaponized nanobots)\n\nMylar bugs, these are small injectable nanobots that carry various items throughout the body for \"installation\" of Psychtronic and Psychotronic wepaons, these are available on the Dark web, and through other Black market paths, they set up things, through Custom Electromagnetic Field labtops, and can even \"stab\" the victim. but are not intended for so , they don't have any spy purpose, just to \"work\" inside the body \n\nthis is basic Spy/Stalk gear , available to both Criminal and GOVERNMENT Use. There is alot more to all of this, this is a well funded Program within the Criminal world as well as the GOVERNMENT world. its pretty easy to figure it out if you just look at how the history of people work, if you can understand that statement. \n\n​\n\nanyways, to put it simply, I break in, or \"sleep\" with the victim, paralyze them with a sedative, then inject them with \"Psychtronic\" weapons, (small nanobots) as stated above, then my partner works there body, now they can monitor the victim through the Eyes, along with hack every single electronic they touch, now they \"call\" or notify the victims friends/family whomever with Voice masks pretending they are US GOVERNMENT Personal, and to \"stay away and don't say a thing or else\" from YOU. same methods apply to the Hospitals when you notice something wrong with your body. (head feeling strange) or (the feeling of something like a spider walking on your brain, or in other areas of your body) . in the meantime my partner also wears a \"V2K\" \"Helmet, that can \"see\" through your eyes from the \"tracers\" the \"beetles\" so now he can talk to you while you see, and on top of that monitor your reactions from \"the hat\" as stated above, so he knows what \"gets you mad\" or \"gets you happy\" to respond accordingly.  This is how GS'ing or GANGSTALKING works. \n\nPsychtronic weapons ( Bio electric weaponized nanobots ) Can indeed murder someone, and there is a variance in the market of what ones do which, however in this situation, they are used to \"Gangstalk\" there is other situations where the GOVERNMENT or Criminals do not gangstalk and just use nanobots to kill the victim silently. \n\n​\n\nDon't be amazed yet.  if you are a poor, or not well funded victim, your doctor will be unable to help or diagnose you correctly, and then you are a victim of a Criminal group, or the GOVERNMENT Stalking/Torture/Murder program, and you will eventually commit suicide or die from Psychtronic or Psychotronic weapons. these weapons are very advanced, and come from \"Motivated\" people, in China,Russia, and other places, that have no qualms of hurting people with small nanobots, Or any qualms on anything, this is after all, a Criminal business , Like anything else. \n\nThat is a quick summary of how GS'ing works atleast remotely, there is more to it, such as being followed etc, but this is how the start up usually works. \n\n​\n\nPeople are stupid here, only in the USA would the hospital say your a mentally ill person, imagine how many people have gotten killed this way, Or Mass Shootings, Another fun story to talk about. \n\nKeep your heads in the sand please, And Kindly. \n\n\\-Your friend",
                "date": "2023-08-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "11vuppa"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvq3ic0",
                "author": "StoopSign",
                "body": "!delta So these disorders predate V2K tech and DEW The disorders were seen for the past hundreds of years (if they are in fact real ---there's a couple wired articles I looked at). These disorders are seen worldwide. I know there's people sensitive to wifi that feel like their brains are being cooked. I know that's real because people flock to that WiFi free zone. People are targeted in all manner of ways. All I can really say is that there's a high likelihood both psychological torture and schizophrenia-spectrum disorders exist. I don't have one or feel targeted. I do think that the vast majority of people who feel targeted are just mentally ill. Mental illness is real. I'm bipolar and yeah it's definitely real.",
                "date": "2023-08-11",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvomqem"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvq3l4a",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Square_Foundation_35 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Square_Foundation_35)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-11",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvq3ic0"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcuz1lp",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "I don't think the comparison in your title works because anorexia and suicide are actions, whereas believing yourself to be a Targeted Individual isn't. There's not really a behavior that can be encouraged by the simple existence of the gangstalking subreddit in the same way that there is for the other two.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 192,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcv02m4",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Well you're kinda right. Paranoia is the trait like believing that oneself is too heavy. Still, any behavior in the sub isn't going to help.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 53,
                    "parent_id": "jcuz1lp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcuzjwf",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "R/dessertporn, r/weed, r/drugs, r/bbq, r/[instert one of the plethora of other corrosive habits that have communities built up around them]...where do you draw the line? A lot of subs are bad for people's vulnerabilities. In this case, at least, it seems like banning the sub could make things worse for people who use it by making them feel even more cornered/pushing them to more obscure/fringe online spaces.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcv13hq",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Not true. Those other subs don't have a userbase that's exclusively overeaters or drug addicts. For people truly targeted for being a whistleblower or something thry don't believe the gangstalking type crap because It's nuts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 28,
                    "parent_id": "jcuzjwf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcvozbs",
                    "author": "Terrible_Lift",
                    "body": "I glanced at that sub.  That shit seems completely and totally crazy.  Like really off-putting\n\nShouldn\u2019t we contain the crazy to one place?",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcvweee",
                    "author": "Tommy2255",
                    "body": "Containment boards don't work. Just look at /pol/.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jcvozbs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcvw72p",
                    "author": "ab7af",
                    "body": "Here are my questions.  Does reading or commenting in r/gangstalking make these people's symptoms worse?  Would banning r/gangstalking make their symptoms better?  \n\nThis is really hard to know without study.  Anyone who says they know the answer is probably full of shit.  \n\nMy *guess* though is that banning it would remove some facet of these people's sense that they still have some control over their lives and can resist the fate which their imagined persecutors have planned for them.  My guess is that participating in a place where they can speak out against their imagined persecution gives them some additional sense of agency and resilience which may be important in resisting the temptation toward suicide or other ways of giving up all hope.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 149,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcvyy1u",
                    "author": "Demiansmark",
                    "body": "I think this is best argument here. \n\nIt seems unhealthy but we just don't really know. And honestly, given the likely very broad range of people on the subreddit it's possible that it's harmful to some and hurtful to others. In the absence of that information I'd say err on the side of people engaging with your platform (if you're Reddit) or just not censoring people generally.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 42,
                    "parent_id": "jcvw72p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcw005c",
                    "author": "Bojack35",
                    "body": "Holy shit that sub is wild. \n\nThat said, there are two ways of looking at a 'community' like that. \n\n1) It draws in / radicalises people.\n2) it is a sufficient level of crazy that it deters people.\n\nThere is an argument that the first category of people are going to find something to be radicalised by. For them, banning the sub may not achieve anything except maybe change what it is they obsess about. You can apply a similar logic to drugs, or eating disorders per your title. Many users will think/ behave that way regardless due to factors outside the community. Some will indeed be pushed to new extremes by the community. However, for the second category of people, some may realise what they are getting into by being able to recognise behaviours in others they would not in themselves. This may prompt them to seek help outside the community. \n\nSo you could view it that the sub not being banned helps some people by showing where a mindset they are already exploring by virtue of finding the sub (posts like yours aside most people must be seeking it to find it) will lead to. Whether this is a price worth paying for those who do get sucked in I don't know. \n\nIn the same way someone seeking out an anorexia sub is already in trouble. Some may actually be dissuaded by how unhealthy those on there look, others unfortunately drawn in deeper. The difference that makes them ban worthy is that an anorexia sub can provide 'guidance' on weight loss, deceit/ hiding it etc.- harmful behaviours. gangstalking can't really promote anything other than the delusion itself. In that sense it is no different to any other conspiracy subreddit so fits more with them than the subs you compare it to.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcw86sd",
                    "author": "itsmyartspace",
                    "body": "I can see your point to an extent. Having bipolar I get paranoia very easily. \nI wouldn't say all are conspiracy theories but most are. \n\nMy paranoia which I had even my husband looking out for at a time and the PI we hired. I thought a group of people was using fast-food restaurants and places like Walmart to stalk me while they were on the clock. I mean come on if that was happening could you imagine how many lawsuits I would have against those institutions and employees for allowing and doing that to their customers? I mean I thought the employees were taking my photos and sharing them with other people all while working. To be able to stalk me using those companies. Mind-boggling but I know it happens. Imagine how rich you could be knowing those companies would settle not to have something like that out in the public. Also, all the people that would then have a criminal record for stalking.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwcrwz",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Yeah you get where I'm coming from here. I can relate. It's why I posted this. I'm pretty much for free speech. I think we lost some good apolitical communities in the past several years for window dressing.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jcw86sd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcw9isa",
                    "author": "TemptedTomato11",
                    "body": "Do you think that sub is mostly full of people telling the truth or liars? Like the r/AITA or r/relationships posts are mostly bs. This sub is barely known and has only 42k subscribers with 200-300 active users. The sub barely has any posts with non zero upvotes. \n\nThis kind of reminds me of the subs that used to pretend paranormal shit was real. \n\nI'd also be hesitant to take one story of one person who went too far down the rabbit hole as an example of the entire sub's power/impact. For one thing, when people commit suicide others in their life tend to try to justify it through something external and not related to them. Second, we don't know the full history of this person. Third, in the same article, you have someone talk about 5 of their clients thinking the Truman show is their own life basically. \n\nMy point being is that this sub seems to not be encouraging behavior the same way a suicide promotion or ED promotion group is. I'm not sure there's anything in particular that drives people to do anything from r/gangstalking. People who are dealing with mental health issues will find plenty of subs on reddit and online groups to fulfill their paranoia. \n\nLastly, there always tends to be fear-mongering with online content as dangerous or a new scary trend without looking at the underlying issues of the people impacted.\n\nFrom the article: \n\n>Danny is legally not allowed access to Jenny\u2019s medical records and therefore doesn\u2019t know if she stopped taking her medication, or a medication change prompted her death. But he believes gangstalking forums played at least some part in his sister\u2019s decline. \u201c\n\nIt seems like we have no idea what actually caused this woman's suicide. The reason why I'm anti banning this sub is that we have only stories of encounters and a lot of speculation on its damage, but idk if I see much activity or posts that show a danger. There's not much promotion of self-harm as far as I can see.\n\nAnd increase in sub count means nothing. If a sub looks to be interesting to people watch in a sense, others will subscribe but never post.\n\nEDIT: Look at a sub focused on TRT for men or steroid use in general or subs based on drugs or subs like r/supplements. There's a lot of wacky people out there. You'd have to ban plenty of subs if you wanted to reduce harm or get rid of social media. I think you need a strong case to get rid of a sub and to me this sub isn't the worst I've seen.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwchlj",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Several points. I suspect some larping and then paranoid folks. Then some trolls who think triggering people is funny. Bad mix. Those slenderman stabbers were a much starker minority of creepypasta followers than the paranoids are here. Truman show as reality is a common delusion among them. I've met so many people through treatment that we compare notes when we got better. Some dont stay better (RIP 3 ppl. One close schizo friend). Read The Collected Schizophrenias to learn more about schizo stuff and also the Slenderman Stabbers. \n\n-------\n\nI know all about the wacky subreddits. I'm subbed to the RC sub and have a history of using all sorts of chems and combos to self treat my own BS. I'm healthier when I don't post there much even if I take them. That shouldn't be banned. It's helped my alcoholism. I did make myself a guinea pig for some unstudied chems though and it's on me in tbe end.\n\n---------- \n\nI know it's not the worst offender as far as subs go. It just hits close to home because of myself and also my dad.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jcw9isa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwcyio",
                    "author": "Satire-V",
                    "body": "I've been previously diagnosed with schizoaffective and it's extremely volatile to have an entire community basically feeding this agreed-upon psychosis complete with terminology.\n\nThere was a killer in the name of \"targeted individuals\" which makes it even worse.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcweq0j",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Yeah I get you. I'd like a source on the second line or else it reads like more fear mongering of the mentally ill. Bad enough they lockdown schools here over the \"mentally disturbed.\" Damn stigmatizing over correction.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcwcyio"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwis4l",
                    "author": "lostwng",
                    "body": "You have no proof to your claim that most of the people who use that sub are schizophrenic, and the group itself promotes suicide awareness and bans trying to give unsolicited medical advice.  The sub is no more or less dangerous than any other.  Also to claim that people with eating disorders can not help others with eating disorders recover is just untrue",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfluosf",
                    "author": "RedModsSuck",
                    "body": "> bans trying to give unsolicited medical advice\n\nDude, it is literally rule 3 of the sub.",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcwis4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwl6h8",
                    "author": "TallQueer9",
                    "body": "\u201cThe country\u201d \n\nWhat country are you talking about?",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwp7gp",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "US",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jcwl6h8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwmoii",
                    "author": "Mathisonsf",
                    "body": "Semi-relevant: the Microsoft employee who stabbed his co-worker a few weeks ago (trial upcoming) posted on r/gangstalking in addition to his insane personal blog",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwp4yj",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I found the thread on that. That was enough for pizzagate...",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcwmoii"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwpxwd",
                    "author": "GanjARAM",
                    "body": "\u201ethe country\u201c Americans and not knowing that the internet is globally accessible, name a better duo",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcwv4s6",
                    "author": "expectothedoctor",
                    "body": "I disagree that the degree of someone's schitzophrenia has to do with their intelligence.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcx14no",
                    "author": "mirrorworlds",
                    "body": "Just want to add that just because the  subscription count of the sub went up during the pandemic doesn\u2019t mean there are more active users who believe it. I joined it during the pandemic to try to \u2018help\u2019 users and posted a little bit before it became apparent my efforts were fruitless. A lot more people were just more online during the pandemic.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcx1ha5",
                    "author": "ShuddupMeg627",
                    "body": "Well anorexia and suicidal ideation are potentially dangerous mental health issues gangsta talking however is not they are not forcing anyone to join a gang",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcx74t5",
                    "author": "Thin_Title83",
                    "body": "Not gonna so why would I try. The internet is wild bub. Get over it! Ps I'm sorry that you're mad at least this is something dumb and dumping your energy into it won't hurt anybody. Good luck on your tivial efforts \ud83d\udc4c",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxfd2g",
                    "author": "tinkerer13",
                    "body": "r/gangstalking is NOT pro-stalking. Would you ban an anorexia support group, or ban a suicidal support group?",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxi5py",
                    "author": "morphotomy",
                    "body": "Hilariously enough pro-ana and gangstalking groups tend to be frequented by the same people since they both have a high percentage of methheads.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxpl4g",
                    "author": "benjewmant",
                    "body": "So should any pro overweight subreddits that exist. But they would call you fatphobic and publicly lynch you before that happened.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxqdhb",
                    "author": "StrawberryLeche",
                    "body": "I disagree with you as someone who has suffered from a similar disorder and ED. Banning the ED subreddit just caused sufferers who were engaging in a healthy way to find the far and unhealthier parts of the internet or other subs ( some of which are very helpful I will add). I don\u2019t think getting rid of this community that isn\u2019t engaging in anything is the answer. This disease is chronic in MOST people and flare ups happen. However most people you talk to when you suffer just call you crazy etc. obviously delusions shouldn\u2019t be fed into but I think to a certain extent having a place where you can engage with others in a similar plight helps you feel less alone. These disorders aren\u2019t contagious and based on the posts I\u2019m seeing no one is encouraging harm. I\u2019d argue it\u2019s healthier than some irl support groups I\u2019ve seen. I get from your side of things seeing people encouraged in the worst of it is harmful, however I think of how alone and scared I felt, how people in my life treated me with fear, and imagine I would have felt relieved to have someone to talk to besides myself.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxrf0p",
                    "author": "Inevitable-Holiday68",
                    "body": "While kid-beaters, rapers muggers torturers murderers stalkers cults etc, are real\n\nI'm not so sure on :'\"gangstalkers'\",'\"T.I(s)'\"', etc since most of them seen online seem very illogical unscientific etc,,\n\nPart of me greatly pities them but part of me resents them for pooping the trail the rest of us has to climb\n\n\nOf course I have the right to choose control my appearance health life death\n\n\nTo choose control where why how when I die\n\nThe thing is that many of these \"T.I'\" in fact truly do have genuine physical sickness suffering but their \"explanations\"'&'\"evidence\"' are just so unfair illogical ridiculous (unless there's something I missing here(?))\n\n'\"our\"' society economy so unhealthy unfair wasteful unwelcoming, so much sickness questions/oppressions unfairness helplessness uselessness humiliation fear cruelty joblessness etc forced upon so many , that even though I totally disbelieve the whole gangstalkers' story,,; I understand why some people would believe it",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jmczxfx",
                    "author": "justmeanoldlady",
                    "body": "If the stalkers were using kinetic energy weapons you would have hard evidence in the form of bullets, explosions, etc. but they use direct energy weapons so they are more covert and leave only scars and sometimes marks on windows.",
                    "date": "2023-05-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcxrf0p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcxu87u",
                    "author": "_Atlas_Drugged_",
                    "body": "Sweet Rubberband Man reference",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcy76em",
                    "author": "LeoLittlebook6",
                    "body": "\"Gangstalking\", AKA team foot surveillance, is an expensive method that is actually deployed by law enforcement etc.  I think the better solution would be for Reddit to ensure that there are responsible mods there who steer the group towards objective methods of verifying or falsifying the existence of a local surveillance operation.  I agree that it's a safety issue to feed into someone's paranoid psychosis, since it can easily result in violence against innocent bystanders.  Even if there couldn't be any legal liability, it's still ethical for Reddit to make sure such subreddits stay sane.  Let them imagine a vast NWO conspiracy, but require an objective nonviolent investigation style.  Preferably one that focusing on making smalltalk with strangers and reduces the feeling of isolation.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcyalsx",
                    "author": "KarsaToblakai",
                    "body": "Worth noting ProED was not actually ProED. It was a friendly space for people to come to and get advice and tips for living with and managing an eating disorder.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcyjfwc",
                    "author": "Sir_vendetta",
                    "body": "My question is, will banning groups like gangstalking improve the mental health of such individuals? Such groups give people with conditions a focus, a place to identify with other people suffering with the same issues, will isolation from society help them, or make them even worse?",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jczw2c9",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "r/mentalillness r/schizophrenia r/schizoaffective",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcyjfwc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcyq6s6",
                    "author": "Zer0Summoner",
                    "body": "As a public defender who deals which schizophrenic people on a daily basis, my lay opinion is that banning something they think gives them power over something is just rocket fuel for their delusional beliefs. Now they're being silenced, you see, they must know too much.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcyrfq6",
                    "author": "Sir_vendetta",
                    "body": "That's exactly my point. Maybe fueling their paranoia by banning the only place where they feel safe may not be the best idea.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jcyq6s6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jcz6map",
                    "author": "Lierce",
                    "body": "Disagree.  Think banning any of these subreddits is the wrong approach.\n\nThese subreddits should be unable to ban or block anyone outside the group, so they can be swarmed by any other users that disagree with them. \n\nCensorship fuels paranoia and social segregation.  Let the public discourse show up at their doorstep and tell them why they're wrong.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jczvraj",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "I agree, however if the first two are banned then the one in this post should also be.",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jcz6map"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd0hk2o",
                    "author": "Powerful_Union_7329",
                    "body": "Well pro suicide and anorexia groups actually kill people your kinda of and idiot for even making this",
                    "date": "2023-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jd1oz82",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Fig-42",
                    "body": "How are you going to determine whether someone is being gangstalked or not?   \n\nUnless you live their lives you wouldn't know and there are victims of several crimes that have no witnesses and no one believes",
                    "date": "2023-03-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jdgpeit",
                    "author": "mmm504",
                    "body": "Such a comparison illustrates an obvious bias against a community who suffer real and well documented atrocities, that apparently lay outside your realm of knowledge or ability to comprehend.  Fortunately for you, you pose no significant spiritual or intellectual threat, thus sparing you the indignities suffered by the Targeted Individual.  You need only pick up a book on Nazi Germany and Zersetzung to verify the existence and use of this particular method of torture.  Research the staggering scale of death and devastation the world has suffered as the result of one man's ignorance of another's inhumanity.  The major difference between mental illness and gangstalking is that you can spend 48 hours straight tethered to an unmediated Schizophrenic, and no matter how delusional they are, you will not see what they see.  However, if you walk beside a TI all day for 2 days, YOU WILL EXPERIENCE THIS PHENOMENON ALONG WITH THEM.  Rarely if ever will you find a spouse or significant other of a TI doesn't know their partner is experiencing true harassment, because they see it.  And like those who refused to acknowledge mass murder perpetrated by Hitler, because it was too unbelievable to accept, the denial of the horror of GS by those who claim ignorance will be equally unacceptable.",
                    "date": "2023-03-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "je59j95",
                    "author": "Old-Wheel6294",
                    "body": "GangStalking became a doctoral thesis look it up on youtube.",
                    "date": "2023-03-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "je59phb",
                    "author": "Old-Wheel6294",
                    "body": "GangStalking became a doctoral thesis look it up on youtube.",
                    "date": "2023-03-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jff21z2",
                    "author": "Budget_Concern3870",
                    "body": "I cheated on my high school sweetheart and now she a porn star in miami...",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jmd0jtc",
                    "author": "justmeanoldlady",
                    "body": "you only wish you had a girlfriend into porn.",
                    "date": "2023-05-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jff21z2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jgc2dgr",
                    "author": "Nila_Rajne",
                    "body": "Ive made a pro ED discord group. We currently have 29 members and its lovely. Feel free to dm to be added as it is a private group.",
                    "date": "2023-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jj6sesf",
                    "author": "TIunknown",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is real for some people, maybe a small percentage of people, but it can be very real.",
                    "date": "2023-05-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jj72ngk",
                    "author": "pwys91",
                    "body": "This question was asked with the foregone conclusion that organized stalking/ community mobbing cannot and does not happen. It can and it does. It's a very sick crime and banning these support groups takes away these victims only support. The group does not reinforce their belief in gangstalking. Their experience out in the real world does. What made these individuals find their way to these groups in the first place? \n\nI have never met a victim of organized stalking that got conventional psychological help with medications and cognitive therapy who were better off. \n\nAlot of people on here's opinions are based on what people say on reddit and wired magazine. How about funding a transparent study with a psychologist and a face to face interview with those who claim this crime is happening to them and make your decision on the results of that instead of just dismissing it. This world is not always so simple and \"ocumms razor \" does not always apply.",
                    "date": "2023-05-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jjcsw7r",
                    "author": "Refusenik303",
                    "body": "This deep state is weaponized to the point of being Donestic Terrorist Organizations (DTO) and rigged the election and installed Joe Biden and is destroying the country in various ways including the FBI Fusion Center/FISA/Terrorist Watchlist fraud targeted individual program making up terrorist because there aren't any and covertly harassing you until you react and entraping you.",
                    "date": "2023-05-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jjxagnn",
                    "author": "SnooOranges1918",
                    "body": "Wow. You've got your hands full there. I hope you get away from that situation somehow. I don't know what else to say. Just hope you can steer your way out of that. Best of luck to you..",
                    "date": "2023-05-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "11vuppa",
                    "author": "StoopSign",
                    "body": "Gangstalking is a conspiracy adjacent subreddit where people believe they're Targeted Individual. Like the other TI, these guys are as \"wild as the Taliban\" as the userbase consists almost exclusively of unmedicated or underresourced people with schizophrenia spectrum diagnoses.\n\nThe public perception of the disorders distracts from how this is a spectrum of disorders and like autism the spectrum is basically based on the underlying intelligence of the patient. People with these disorders often need hospitalization for to get treatment for the disorders. For the average r/gangstalking user, their functional capacity is limited by the subreddit and their more likely to get more paranoid with continued exposure to the subreddit.\n\nhttps://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/07/1006109/inside-gangstalking-disturbing-online-world/\n\n---------------------\n\nThe precedent has been set that suicidal depressives should be saved from being led by suicidal depressives and the same is true with groups for eating disorder groups. Precedent has been set sitewide to help people who can't help themselves by banning subs like r/gangstalking.\n\n--------\n\nHere's some info on the subreddit stats. Use of the sub has skyrocketed since the pandemic. It's quadruped. \n\n\n\nhttps://subredditstats.com/r/Gangstalking\n\n\nI think use of the site overall has gone up but also the mental health of the country took a hit. Sometimes you notice it when something wacky happens in the world. Sometimes you notice it when you look in the window. Maybe even when checking on people spying on you \n\n----------\n\nPersonal note: I was labeled a schizo at one time. I still have the tendencies flare up. Since the pandemic, mostly. Please do not disagree by telling me it's real as a joke.",
                    "date": "2023-03-19",
                    "score": 1092,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If pro-anorexia groups, suicide promotion groups are banned due to the vulnerability of the users, then r/gangstalking should also be banned",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/11vuppa/cmv_if_proanorexia_groups_suicide_promotion/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jz4rhxy",
                    "author": "Swimming-Tangerine87",
                    "body": "I don't know...10 years ago I would agree that what TI's experience is some form of mental disorder. Now after living through the experience personally..I still don't know wtf was really going on but if I wasn't delusional there was a reason that it happened and it involved an offense I committed to someone who lives in my neighborhood still to this day..and I mightadd that this suburban Pennsylvania neighborhood is home to many retired police current police, ex military and govt. Workers. After I unintentionally terrorized this sort of elderly couple within about a week my life was turned inside out..I wont get into all the incidents that occured but ill say that I was 30 years old and I had never in my entire life experienced any symptoms of mental disorders or psychosis..I never even was suspicious of random people before..i was generally good natured and trusting..anyway after said unintended terrorization occured my existence was in every sense of the word compromised Everywhere I went everyone involved with me, phones I bought from my regular provider came with remotely accessible OS and firmware. And a multitude of other inexplicable un explainable phenomena was destroying my life on a daily basis.  I would spend my nights in random forests hiding from ghosts that never actually did anything other than influence fear and make my family and people I was associated with do things like tell me I was schizo and I would get calls from chrisis centers Even discovered a network encapsulation program called \"shadow DOM\" when I was taking a look at the available WiFi and network sources..i looked at this because I was getting very ironic and uncanny search results on my browser searches.  For example I would look up something about electronic harassment and I would get search results saying that Google couldn't find anything g related to my topic...really? Google couldn't find ANYTHING on the topic..i don't care if you look up what year God picked his nose and what color the booger was Google is goi g to give something..and I noticed that the graphics of the browser were often inconsistent at different viewing times like the Google G would look like it was copied and pasted so I want to the library and everything their computers looked  normal so i searched for something along the lines of can web searches be manipulated by third parties and I read that about programs that can be used to encapsulate networks or servers(im notwell versed in computer science) basically I read that search results can be altered or manipulated by third party viewers then one day while looking at what all came up when selecting different WiFi options I noticed a selection called ShadowDOM2.4 and I researched it and learned that it does exactly what I read about...then of course my growing suspicions suggested that noneofitwas real it was just another ploy ofwhoever was effing with me to increase the depth of the rabbithole in which I was trapt. Anyway these constant happenings eventually led to my 3 year incarceration where everything god dreadfully normal and cliche..reality returned to its usual stasis and I was at a lost..you see as much as itsucked going through what I was g through Iwas morbidly obsessed with whatever it was that was going on I had so many unanswered questions and unresolved connundeums and suspicions and doubts and just .. I don't even know but the way itbegan and stopped ... I just do t believe I had a random lapse of cognizance or break in my mental integrity because like I said when I went to prison it all came to an immediate halt and the whole time iwas there I just thought and replayed all the interactions and incidents that happened and all over got in my search and ponderings was confirmation that my family and friends had nothing to do with it.  The process destroyed one very close relationship and nearly destroyed my familial relationships..the time I did was comforted by the very people that I believed to bebehind my plight.  And I learned that love and family iseverything.  Then when I got out of prison I began my search .. I invited it opened the door taunted it and I quickly realized that theywouldnt be bothering me again and even if they did they would be completely in effictive .  im not saying that every case is certifiable gangstalking or that even most cases are certifiable gang stalking ill even do one better .. Im not saying that I didn't have a brief break in my mind. One thing I learned though is that most things in therealm of possibility can happen and its definitely not intelligent or right to have any standpoint on this subject if you haven't personally experienced it..when people make claims that all these accounts can be chalked up to the mental health crisis in this country, well that just makes things entirely to cookie cutting and general for such a broad range of thousands of people sharing similar chrisis experiences.  Because remember when mine happened I had never even smoked weed before I was under the influence of nothing I was a full time student and had a full time job I was 32 and never had any lapse of mental psychosis before then it all happened suddenly and ended just as suddenly and I've never had another problem sense..i guess I say all that to say that if a decision is going to be made on this subject being removed it shouldn't be made by anyone who arbitrarily thinks that its all just a big psychosis and the people are sick and in danger of getting worse this decision should should be made by someone who neither believes or disbelieves the decision should be unbiased to the validity of the subject..and personally I think posts that discredit accounts and experience of victims should not be permitted.  Think about it .. Isn't it more likely that yeah sure there are individuals that are suffering mental instability and definitely certain cases are drug induced but I just cant imagine that its not entirely possible that there are many verifiable group harassment and electronic harassment situations happening all the time with a specific concentration in the northeastern side of the states..just sayin its unfortunate that there are not more cases of people who have lived through this either imagined or real experience..and if there are readers who have come out on the other side please speak up.",
                    "date": "2023-09-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "11vuppa"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "127xrwi",
                "author": "ericoahu",
                "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                "date": "2023-03-31",
                "score": 895,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jek5wmo",
                "author": "Per-virtutem-pax",
                "body": "Because your post states sending nudes is a bad idea for \"most\" people, I disagree. Particularly in Western cultures, as for some others, it would indeed be devastating due to how third parties would treat it.  But in the West, the younger the generation, the increasingly less significant the issue appears to become.\n\n\"There is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. \" ---> As others have alluded to, everything carries some level of risk.  With respect to nudes,  sure, the risk is public dissemination of photos/videos. Which is what, a drop in the bucket of the internet's largest export. Unless you're gorgeous or a prominent figure (statistically a diminutive minority of the population; thus, going against the \"most\" claim) only those people closest to you could be affected in any way. So that rules out public obliquoy from the vast majority of folk who might have nudes floating around the web.\n\nThis brings us to personal connections. Now we have to cut down the population further by separating the \"'victims\" in at least three groups (victims is quoted not to belittle, but to highlight; typing on my phone so I don't know how to italicize/bold. Forgive me). 1. People who don't care at all. The vast majority of males would likely fall into that, if not at least, a bulk, and then a minority of women could be folded into this group. 2. Those who may not want it disseminated, but even if they are, they don't care.  The remainder of the majority of men would be put into this group with still again some minority percent of women belonging here. I'm in this category, and it has certainly already happened. I am not attractive, likely average, work in a public white collar profession with significant potential for public scrutiny, and can lose my career--one I paid hundreds of thousands to get into--if the wrong kind of reputation is garnered. And yet,  I don't care.  It is what it is. Especially since I'm male.\n\nBy now, we've cut the total population of victims who would care enough to be detrimentally affected down to at least half the population, if not much less. Which in itself goes against your claim it's bad for \"most.\" \n\nNow, let's look at the reasons you claim it might be bad for them. \"In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation.\"  Now we again will have multiple categories of people who are left within the \"detrimentally affected\" group. 1. Those whose family, friends, partner, and/or job (whatever group[s] the 'victim' is sensitive to having witness the material) do not care nor will they judge in any substantive way. I'd like to think that most folk are akin to those I've been around; that is, none of them would scorn the victim. Indeed, they'd do what most folk I know would do, hold the perp in great contempt, and likely defend or even bond with the victim. Let's say this group is 33% for the sake of argument as this is a stat that's likely impractical to ever obtain. 2. Those victims who might be judged or criticized, but the event itself is one and done so-to-speak. They might get a couple of weeks' worth of judgements, but it would be over with quickly. And with no substantive impact on their career or personal life. This still supports your claim, in my opinion, OP, but the share of folks is already in the minority by this point. So, it still counters your overall argument.  Let's say this group represents  17% 3. The people who are detrimentally affected in varying degrees of severity. This would be the remaining population. So 50% of 50% at best (per my subjective and presently unsupported observations based on anecdotes, but it's the best I can do). That's 25% of the population at best.  This explicitly, if true, would counter your claim fully.\n\nAdditionally, most joyous activities come with risks. Skydiving, motorcycles, free climbing,  and sex.  Most people weigh and measure their risks to some degree. And for those who commit to a risky endeavor, make their decision after some contemplation of that risk. Those who decide to act within the risk are generally going to be less likely to be detrimentally bothered should the risk manifest itself to reality. Which is to say, those who decide to send nudes have weighed the risk. They found the reward of gratification, be it sexual or otherwise, to be worth more than the manifestation of the risk. Meaning that while they may still not want the photos/videos leaked, they consciously allowed that risk to occur (only referring to one's who indeed calculated the risk). So it's only bad insofar as it's not the preference.\n\nIf a person/couple is highly sexually active, gets great joy from the pleasures of sexual exploration, then the minimal risks presented above are outweighed by that pleasure and to them and myself,  it doesn't really matter if it gets leaked.  For the vast majority of people, leaked nudes will have minimal to no impact. You'll either be too unattractive for people to care; professionally it would be inconsequential; your social network won't care and might even improve your bonding(rare, but possible); and it is likely to be a fleeting experience like any other with no lasting impact. \n\nOverall, the majority won't be detrimentally affected. And for those that are, it likely won't actually matter beyond just a moment. Whatever suffering the victim might experience is most likely to be self-induced (think neuroticism or generally anxious folk).",
                "date": "2023-04-01",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "127xrwi"
            },
            {
                "id": "jekbgbr",
                "author": "ericoahu",
                "body": "First off, thanks for the methodical and thorough analysis of how the risk breaks down. This is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for. The risk analysis was especially enlightening. I continue to think it is a bad idea, but perhaps slight less risky for fewer people on average? \n\nI don't find the \"because some risks are worth it, all risks are worth it\" logic compelling at all. You could have left that out entirely. But I like that you brough up skydiving because I had went there myself as I thought this through. Skydiving and sharing nudes are entirely different calculations for me. I think skydiving is a bad idea for me, but I would never say it's a bad idea for most people as I do with sharing nudes. There isn't an inconsistency because the two things differ in crucial ways. \n\nWhen you jump out of a plane, any and all consequences will have transpired within the next few minutes. And jumping out of that plane is entirely within your control, and chances of the chute not opening are what they are. Meanwhile, a lot of the risk mitigation is within the jumper's control.\n\nWith sharing nudes, it's the opposite. Nothing bad is likely to happen in the short term. All of the factors for risk assessment could change during the weeks, months, or years before the consequences come to the fore. Maybe you don't care now and the job you have is worth putting at risk, but you don't know about the opportunities that might be at stake 10 or 20 years from now. It might not be worth it for anyone to share my nudes right now, but what if I were running for governor. Anyway, my point is that there are far too many moving variables when it comes to sharing nudes. \n\nAll that said, I really appreciate the response, and although I have not done a 180, your argument was organized and well supported enough to make me see the whole thing in a different light, especially the how risk might be worth it for more than I'd imagined.\n\n !delta",
                "date": "2023-04-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jek5wmo"
            },
            {
                "id": "jekbizw",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Per-virtutem-pax ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Per-virtutem-pax)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-01",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jekbgbr"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegij1o",
                    "author": "AleristheSeeker",
                    "body": ">In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is\n\n>There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n\nCould you explain why you believe that \"couples who have earned each other's trust\" are \"extremely rare\"? That seems like a major point in this whole argument.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 46,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegl9au",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In short, no I am not going to explain that. See my list of types of arguments I don't find compelling. The reason I said that is because I don't want to deal with a bunch of yeah-but-what-about drive-by posts. I don't think in absolutes about most things, and this is no exception. I qualified my argument carefully enough. \n\nI also think that the longer people have been in a deeply committed relationship, the less likely they are to want to exchange nudes anyway, but that's not part of my view either way. If anything, I think it's a bad idea for lovebirds grandma and grandpa to share nudes too.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": -39,
                    "parent_id": "jegij1o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegin5a",
                    "author": "IndependenceAway8724",
                    "body": "Couldn't you just crop out your face and any other identifying information?",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegr7sr",
                    "author": "SpinMyEyes",
                    "body": "\"I recognise those legs!\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jegin5a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegio93",
                    "author": "I_am_the_night",
                    "body": "I don't think it's that much of a risk if done smartly. My partner and I never send any risque pictures of each other that have our faces or any identifying marks/background in them.  It's not that I don't trust them, either, I just know phones can get lost or stolen or hacked or whatever.  If we aren't in a position to send a picture in a safe way when requested, we just say something like \"not safe, rain check\".  And that's fine because, you know, we are grown adults.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 18,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegk6x3",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "So, would you be fine with sending me some of these pics of you and your partner? (**Please do not**\\--this is just a thought experiment.) My question is aimed at finding out whether you'd truly be comfortable with anyone and everyone having access to those pics of you. I'm guessing that *most people* would not want photos of their naked body circulating outside their control, even if it would be difficult to identify them. \n\nAlso--just curious--if a third party got possession of these pics somehow and began sharing them people you know (now or ten, twenty, thirty years later), how difficult would it be for those third parties to confirm \"yeah, that's him/her/them?\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jegio93"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegkvbj",
                    "author": "TitanCubes",
                    "body": "I would argue that the subset of people that do send nudes is already self selecting people that are generally more okay with people seeing their nudes. Obviously there are very problematic cases I.e. a teenager getting pressured into it, but I think today versus say 10 years ago the idea of revenge porn is so much more known that I think people generally understand the risks and the fact that they do it anyways shows they are comfortable. \n\nYou also don\u2019t really touch on the difference in how men vs. women view sending nudes of themselves. While there are many women that don\u2019t send nudes and would never, I would argue there is plenty of men that would gladly send a dick pic but aren\u2019t asked to. Then there\u2019s also of course unsolicited dick pics that some men are happy to send. As a man the ramifications for having your nude spread are much smaller and less consequential than for women so I would argue there is little issue with men sharing nudes so long as it\u2019s consensual.  \n\nWhen your standard is that it is a bad idea for most people, if it\u2019s fine for 90% of men but only 20% of women that\u2019s still most people, and I think the rates of people sending nudes (for women) show that at least 20% are generally okay with it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegn8uw",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": ">While there are many women that don\u2019t send nudes and would never, I would argue there is plenty of men that would gladly send a dick pic but aren\u2019t asked to.\n\nUnsolicited dick pics have absolutely nothing to do with my views. Apples and oranges. \n\nMy view makes no distinctions between male and female. \n\n>there is plenty of men that would gladly send a dick pic\n\nIn my view, being willing to do something stupid doesn't make it less stupid. For example, eating Tide pods didn't become less of a bad idea after some idiots decided to do it than it was before anyone decided to do it. Hope that clarifies the logic.\n\n​\n\n>I would argue that the subset of people that do send nudes is already self selecting people that are generally more okay with people seeing their nudes. Obviously there are very problematic cases . . . revenge porn is so much more known that I think people generally understand the risks and the fact that they do it anyways shows they are comfortable.\n\nThat is worth elaborating on, if you would. I don't want to set an impossible bar because I don't think anyone would say it's a good idea for everyone, but you got off on the wrong track bringing in dick pics, which I consider a form of sexual harassment. Would you please elaborate on the \"self-selecting\" and \"more okay with it\" parts?",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jegkvbj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegl04f",
                    "author": "Morepatheticthanyou",
                    "body": "I'm not out here sending nudes all day but, undoubtedly yes previous partners have video of me... and them.   \n\n\nThis isn't even really about sending nudes it sounds more about risk assessment in your mind and whether you feel there is any benefit to outweigh the risk of potential bad scenario's.   \n\n\nNobody can sway you with data as there is no data on the amount of people with nude or indecent photos out there vs the % leaked.  \n\n\nMy partner at one point of 7 years would explain in detail everything we did in bed with her friend and mother. Yes her mom. This I found to be awkward, empowering?, intrusive all at the same time. I was getting pats on the back.  \n\n\nI just don't see what view I would be attempting to change this is preference and that is fine. Why anyone would even want to change your view is illogical. It has no merit on anything.   \n\n\nThis is no different than me saying I don't want to eat red meat for health reasons.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeglwuv",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": ">This isn't even really about sending nudes it sounds more about risk assessment in your mind and whether you feel there is any benefit to outweigh the risk of potential bad scenario's.\n\nThat's a fairly accurate summary. No, I am not interested in whether it is moral or not.\n\n>I just don't see what view I would be attempting to change this is preference and that is fine. Why anyone would even want to change your view is illogical. It has no merit on anything.\n\nFair enough. I'll put you down as \"doesn't wish to participate.\" Thanks anyway, I guess? However, now you are now misrepresenting my view. It is more than a personal preference. As I said, my view applies to \"most people,\" not just myself.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "jegl04f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegmt70",
                    "author": "Its_Raul",
                    "body": "As an avid nude sender and friend of nude senders I can try to give some perspective. \n\nFor the married couple. It's basically foreplay and material for later. It's great at building blocks to finally bone when yall get home after a long day. It's like flirting, but wirelessly. \n\nFor the I wanna fuck person. It's also foreplay. They're in it to just have sex and like to tease and show interest. They go into it knowing all the risks and the general thought is it does not matter. Anyone who has an issue with seeing their nudes posted on a revenge site or even distributing to friends or family is more of a problem with the receiver. The sender sent the pictures with trust and abusing that is not the senders fault. In fact they're victimized by people who think lowly of nudes. Anyways, short answer there is the risk they take in sending nudes is obviously evaluated under different risk assessment than you. \n\nFor the casual dater. They only send nudes to people they trust. Typically they won't like dating total fucking assholes, even though the person has the photos, they aren't likely to abuse them. And even if they split, no one cares. It was a gift that's barely any difference than a memory.\n\nI think my argument is that risk is a personal choice. It's a bad idea to you because there is no over weighing reward. For others, it's definitely a overall net benefit. \n\nI think you might be caught up on horror stories and not realize how prevalent nude sending is in the dating sphere. I am curious what your thoughts are for people that have casual sex or one night stands.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegnwdw",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": ">I am curious what your thoughts are for people that have casual sex or one night stands.\n\nI think it's a bad idea for pretty much everyone. \n\n>The sender sent the pictures with trust and abusing that is not the senders fault.\n\nMy view doesn't have much to do with fault or blame. It's a bad idea for anyone who doesn't want to be a victim of it.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jegmt70"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegnf99",
                    "author": "dudemanwhoa",
                    "body": "Is the stance \"Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people [who are currently doing so]\" or \"Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people [in the general population]\".\n\nThe latter is I think trivially true, since there's tons of people who don't have anyone to send them to in the first place, some number that are not inclined to do so outside of the reasons you outline (body image chiefly) and some number who's partners do not want them, and I would be pretty sure that those numbers would add up past 50%.\n\nIf it's the former that's a different question entirely. \n\n> Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years\n\nThis is odd. Being in a 10+ year relationship is not some rare case you have to \"imagine\". Most people ages 25-54 are married (just over 50%), and about 70% of marriage in the US make it past the 10 year mark. Though not quite accounting for the outright majority of people, it's far **far** from some rare edge case.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 22,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegop60",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": ">Is the stance \"Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people \\[who are currently doing so\\]\" or \"Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people \\[in the general population\\]\".\n\nBoth, but to different degrees, I guess. I don't find the distinction compelling in any way. \n\n>Being in a 10+ year relationship is not some rare case you have to \"imagine\". \n\nWell, it's not my role to convince you, but I'll emphasize that I still think it's a bad idea for that 10+ couple to exchange nudes--just not as bad of an idea as for someone to send a nude to a hookup they met five minutes ago online. I tried to make clear that this kind of nitpicking semantics and degrees wouldn't be compelling.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jegnf99"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegobtg",
                    "author": "Meatbot-v20",
                    "body": "Probably true, but also, nude bodies shouldn't be remotely controversial.  So I'd say you're right, but only in the context of our completely arbitrary and bizarre cultural discomfort with skin.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegonb0",
                    "author": "moutnmn87",
                    "body": "I think your whole way of looking at it is flawed. I would agree that sharing nudes might not be a good idea for someone who would be traumatized by their nudes being shared or an ex having their nudes etc. That being said not all cultures/people see nudity as such a terribly shameful thing like a lot of prudish theocrats and their ilk around the world do. So I don't know if most people fit into the demographic of people who would be traumatized by their nudes getting used inappropriately. Not to mention if slut shaming/social consequences was removed from the equation even more people would not be concerned about whether their pictures got out. Would probably be hard to quantify so I don't really have an opinion on what is truly the case here. So I suspect you might be overestimating the downsides and most of the downsides are actually a result of assholes that should be called out/ostracized etc for not minding their own business rather than being downsides that are inherent to nudes without that context. As far as the upside sexting can actually be quite an enjoyable sexual activity. Nudes can add a lot to that. I do think people should be aware of potential consequences for sharing nudes and take those into consideration when deciding whether to do so. Especially teens since underage people sharing nudes is actually distributing child porn. Outside of that I'm more inclined to call out the slut shaming assholes penalizing others for having shared nudes than I am to tell people sharing nudes is inadvisable. Like I do encourage people to be aware of and consider consequences but I also will actively push back against people who are making consequences that shouldn't exist.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegpjdr",
                    "author": "carminehorizon",
                    "body": "\r  \n\\> It is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes.\n\nI'm gonna go out on a limb here but the nature of being in a relationship means that you are sharing things that you would not share with a non-relationship partner and would be potentially uncomfortable engaging in the same behavior if that person was no longer your partner. \n\nFor example, you share a lot of things with your partner like your feelings about your friends, your family, or your past that they could materially use to hurt you - e.g. if you really hate your boss and are just sticking it out until you get promoted but if your boss found out, you'd be fired, or hate a relative but are keeping the peace for inheritance. Ex-partners could blow up a lot of relationships with the information they have purely by the virtue of being your partner at one point in time or another and being closely woven into your life. Same with knowledge of your medical or mental health, your finances, and access into your life. In a relationship, you are also sharing a huge amount of data and access that is patently worse than a digital nude in a way - nudes versus bank account details, access to my personal documents, and deep knowledge of my medical situation. Arguaby, I should share none of this with anybody for the potential damage it could do to me if it all went south yet it's a normal part of being in a relationship and choosing to keep this all deliberately 'away' from the other person reeks of both control issues and of 'hiding myself'. \n\nPartners get different 'access' into parts of your life, including your digital life, including your intimate life.  The level of that access deepens the longer the relationship has gone on for and the more steps you've taken to tie your lives together - e.g. a casual boyfriend versus a 3 year relationship versus moving in together or being in engaged. This also means that when you leave a relationship, you \\*necessarily\\* are leaving them with tools to do you harm and the longer you've been together, the more tools they have. \n\nA lot of people classify nudes under the same situation. They don't have to share them - same as you don't have to share a home, clothes, finances, or information - but it's a form of digital intimacy that is part and parcel of being in a relationship that they can choose to engage in. \n\nFor the record, we've always done intimacy things. From the days of sending raunchy letters that would 100% be considered akin to nudes, sharing actual nudes in the days of early photography, printing nudes and sending them in the mail (ask anybody who has worked in a print photo place how many of those they got in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s). Digital nudes have an immediacy that makes them infinitely more alluring (even 1 hour printing is a long time to wait). Sharing that kind of content with someone you love and appreciate and who does the same in return to you is emotionally validating for a lot of people, and it enhances their relationship. Keeping the steam alive in a relationship, especially one where you might not see a partner for a long time (e.g. military) or not be able to engage in as much 'in person' intimacy as you want (e.g. long distance or living in a multi-generational/multiple occupancy household) is vital and using all the tools at your disposal, including the 'instant video in your pocket' is essential.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegvix2",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "First of all, I really appreciate the thoughtful response. It's one of the nicer ones I've read. But my view does not extrapolate to \"it's a bad idea to share any intimacy whatsoever with a partner.\" \n\nNot all \"intimacy things\" are a bad idea--so you are right there--but that is not the same as saying no intimacy things are a bad idea. \n\n>you share a lot of things with your partner like your feelings about your friends, your family, or your past that they could materially use to hurt you - e.g. if you really hate your boss and are just sticking it out until you get promoted but if your boss found out\n\nMy CMV is not about this, but telling a hookup something that could truly get you fired or arrested is a bad idea too, but again, my CMV is about nudes. \n\nBut most things I might tell a short-term partner about how much I dislike my boss are not going to get me fired, even if the boyfriend went to my boss to relay what I said in private. \n\nTwo scenarios:\n\n* My boss calls me into a meeting. \"Your ex emailed me claiming you said I'm a big fat idiot. Is that true?\" No, I say, he's just mad about me breaking up with him. You're not that fat. \n* My boss calls me into a meeting. \"You should know that your ex sent everyone you know this pic of you naked. I deleted it as soon as I saw what it was, but I thought you should know.\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jegpjdr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegq3xr",
                    "author": "EvilBeat",
                    "body": "Do you not drive because of the inherent risk? Online bank? Use social media known for scams?Life is all about choices and tolerance and choices. Your assumption is that most people would have their lives ruined by an ex having a nude picture of them, which I find to be perplexing. Revenge porn laws are a thing in a lot of places now, and even then I feel like the risk of an ex posting videos or pictures is quite small compared to the number of people sharing nudes to begin with. This feels more like a personal preference that you\u2019re turning into an outward opinion on other people, and will be much harder for you to find anything that would change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegtu2c",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "\\>Do you not drive because of the inherent risk?\n\nNo, I drive every day. There's a very real risk that I could be killed in a collision. It sounds like *your* logic is \"because some risks are worth it, all risks are a good idea?\"",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "jegq3xr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegqz1y",
                    "author": "MrGraeme",
                    "body": "I'm going to tackle this from a few areas.\n\n>Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if anyone--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude.\n\nI'd go as far as to say that 100% of parents have seen their children naked - most children have seen their parents naked at some stage as well. We've all seen our friends naked - and our friends have seen us naked - when we change after exercise or travel together. We're fine letting medical staff, massage therapists, trainers, and sometimes even run of the mill salespeople see us naked - and who knows which of them are pleasing themselves to the thought once you're gone. \n\nThis isn't to say that you shouldn't care about having your privacy or your trust broken, but ultimately unless you're the victim of continued, directed harassment, in the long term it really doesn't matter much. How many times do *you* think about the bodies of those friends and strangers that you went swimming with? How often do thoughts of your parents bodies pop into your head? The answer is probably never or rarely. Heck, think about how often you reminisce about the bodies of people who you've had sex with - the answer is probably the same, unless they *really* left an impression. \n\nThe point I'm making here is that we really don't care about who sees us naked. If we did, there wouldn't be any communal showers, no communal changing rooms, and you'd only be able to get a massage through a t-shirt. \n\n>Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made. I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n\nWhether or not someone is actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes depends on the nature of their nudes. If you're taking photos of yourself without any identifiable characteristics visible, it's essentially impossible for the distributor to prove that it is you. If you've never seen someone's penis before, how would you have any idea whether the revenge dick pic that gets shared with you actually belongs to the victim and not just some random person on the internet? In these cases, the harm comes not from the existence of the nude on the internet, but rather the breach of trust and/or invasion of privacy that put it there. \n\nThere is no guarantee that harm will occur even if you are identifiable. Unless the image is shared with your social circle or tied to your name, the chances of anyone even connecting it to you are slim-to-none. My nudes could be plastered all over Nepalese billboards for all I care - nobody who's ever seen them can connect them to me. I'll give you an example: my bank account number is 6873841. You and I are likely perfect strangers. It doesn't matter that you know my bank account number because the chances of you ever gaining the additional information necessary to use it to harm me are infinitesimally small. Even if we did someday meet, what are the chances that you'd remember it?",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegse9k",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": ">I'd go as far as to say that 100% of parents have seen their children naked - most children have seen their parents naked at some stage as well. We've all seen our friends naked - and our friends have seen us naked - when we change after exercise or travel together. We're fine letting medical staff, massage therapists, trainers, and sometimes even run of the mill salespeople see us naked - and who knows which of them are pleasing themselves to the thought once you're gone.\n\nYou seem to see this whole question and the practice of sharing nudes as beginning and ending with taboos around nudity? Is that accurate? \n\nIs your logic really that \"because my dad saw me naked when he changed my diapers, it's no problem if my pissed off ex distributes nudes I shared with him?\"\n\nI would not agree to my doctor, massage therapist, or friend taking and sharing nudes of me either because I think that would be a bad idea.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jegqz1y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegrd81",
                    "author": "Smilwastaken",
                    "body": "I enjoy it. My partner enjoys it. I trust my partner since we've been friends for years. Why wouldn't I?",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegwafk",
                    "author": "supapuerco",
                    "body": "Your view seems flawed to me because you specifically say that arguments about \"rarity\" of abuse will not change your view. But the likelihood that something bad happens is perhaps the most important factor when evaluating risk! \n\nYou say elsewhere in this thread:\n\n> No, I drive every day. There's a very real risk that I could be killed in a collision. It sounds like your logic is \"because some risks are worth it, all risks are a good idea?\"\n\nThis is a poor retort. The amount of risk is quantifiable and relevant! How risky do you actually think it is? Are you correct?\n\nIt seems likely the \"most people\" you are worried about either have a different view of the amount of risk involved, or do not think the consequences are as severe as you do.\n\nIf you want to expand your personal view of sharing nudes into a discussion about what is right for other people, you're going to have to be more objective, and therefore discuss the actual rarity.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegwxoz",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "I have given deltas to people who helped me to rethink the risk-reward ratio. The flawed logic in the post you describe is apparently, \"because some risks are worth it, all risks are worth it\" is flawed logic and, for me, a non-starter.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jegwafk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegwgtm",
                    "author": "SirWankshaft_McTwit",
                    "body": "I would actually say that abuse of nude photos is the exception here. You should be careful who you share sensitive information with no matter what, but anecdotally, it's never backfired against me, nor any of my ex girlfriends or hookups.\n\nIf you're careful enough not to share your face or any identifying features, it's just another naked body, and then who gives a shit. There's no proof it's you. And if there is, equally so; who cares? It's such common practice, I feel like the stigma is steadily dissipating. I personally don't care if someone uploads my pictures online, but I have faith that none of the people I associated with would do so, and I've always made sure to delete sensitive photos of anyone I'm not associating with anymore.\n\nIt boils down to common sense. Be responsible, be a good judge of character, and make sure that it won't affect you adversely if on the off chance your nudes do get leaked. Chances are that if you aren't an important name, nobody gives a shit anyway. The sheer volume of porn online is so unimaginably massive that your photos will become irrelevant within hours, if they ever become relevant at all.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegxfss",
                    "author": "TightLines022",
                    "body": "Anyone who wants to see nudes of me are welcome to. \nBut I\u2019m not paying for therapy after",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegxqi5",
                    "author": "Olyvyr",
                    "body": "I believe this falls under the legal principle of \"no face, no case\".",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegyosd",
                    "author": "Starshapedsand",
                    "body": "Given that software that allows someone to create nudes from clothed pictures is becoming more prevalent, I don\u2019t think it matters anymore. Anyone can now disclaim that they were real.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jegz5t4",
                    "author": "Electronic_Yam5838",
                    "body": "There's so much free stuff online I doubt anyone will care about me, who is not a professional & don't look like one. Pros are doing crazy things that is much more exciting. No one wants to see run of the mill me except my partner. So it doesn't worry me.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeh2cl5",
                    "author": "becauseitsnotreal",
                    "body": "If you don't trust someone enough to be intimate in whatever way you deem appropriate and engaging, you shouldn't be with them",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeh3heg",
                    "author": "021240414464765",
                    "body": "I'm hot and have an exhibitionist streak, I don't really give a fuck who sees em personally",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeh6351",
                    "author": "einoen",
                    "body": "Insert generic chad meme reaction",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehf9pg",
                    "author": "simmol",
                    "body": "Is it possible that with the advent of AI and deepfake, it doesn't matter as much if you send your nude photo?  You can just deny its authenticity and state that this is just an AI creation if need be (and most people will trust you).  Moreover, if someone were that insane to use this in a malicious manner, most likely that other person can just create a deepfake and accomplish something similar without having the real photo.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehin5o",
                    "author": "rhynoplaz",
                    "body": "It's a little more complicated than this, but there's a good chance that if my wife hadn't sent me nudes, we wouldn't be happily married today.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehjlks",
                    "author": "SocDemGenZGaytheist",
                    "body": "I hate to leave a relatively short response to such an evidently well-thought-out and fairly thorough post. So far, though, I have not seen OP or other top-level commenters bring up removing identifying information from nude pictures.\n\nFor example, consider a scenario where someone posts a nude photo of me online which does not show my face, my *entire* body, my location, or any of my property. It also has been stripped of metadata that can tie it to me, and it was taken from an angle that makes it hard to even determine my height. If someone claimed that it was me, and I denied it, then it seems plausible that I could escape mentally and socially unscathed. \n\nThis may merely be one of the \u201cedge cases\u201d you dismissed. Even shelving my own quibbles with the idea of dismissing edge cases, I could still imagine someone reasonably believing that as long as they are careful to exclude their face and identifying information from their nudes, then they will probably be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehrjkm",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "> I have not seen OP or other top-level commenters bring up removing identifying information from nude pictures.\n\nI gave a delta to someone early on for [bringing that up](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/comment/jegpnat/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). It might have been the first one, actually. It didn't change my mind, but I felt I had to set a pretty low bar given that most people know it's a bad idea on some level.\n\n>my own quibbles with the idea of dismissing edge cases\n\nI did the opposite of dismissing edge cases. I acknowledge in my OP from the start that they exist and that's why I qualified my view the way I did--which in turn is why bringing up edge cases will not be compelling: they're already part of the equation. Bringing up edge cases works one someone who thinks in binaries or absolutes. \n\n>For example, consider a scenario where someone posts a nude photo of me online which does not show my face, my entire body, my location, or any of my property.\n\nI think it's still a strong candidate for bad idea territory because it's plausible an ex could send said photo to someone you know, someone who wouldn't check the meta data, and most importantly, someone who might be more hurt to see it than you are about them seeing it.\n\nImagine a scenario where a teacher (or a rabbi, family doctor, family friend, etc.) who thought the world of you gets a weird email with the subject line, \"check out your favorite student Gaytheist (where that is the name he knows you by).\" He opens it, and before he realizes it, he's seeing the last thing he ever wanted to see. He's now embarrassed and worried about you. He's now a victim of this whole thing too. This is not a situation where you would need or he would require confirmation by metadata. They don't need legal evidence to see its probably you. If they know you well, it would be plausible that it's you, and that's enough to hurt them, independent of how much or little it hurts you. I didn't bring up that angle in my OP, so I'm not going to debate it. Like I said, it was a good enough point that I gave a delta.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jehjlks"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehn8zz",
                    "author": "Knautical_J",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve had it both ways, and honestly the good outweighs the bad. Long story short, first nude I sent was to my high school gf, which eventually made its way to everyone in school by the time the weekend was over. My face wasn\u2019t in it, but you could tell it was me. I\u2019m blessed below the belt, but the morality of her doing that hurt. I didn\u2019t care people saw my dick because my friends have seen it more times than probably I have. I ended up breaking up with her a few weeks later over it, and I had to deal with the last 2 years of high school getting comments about it, and still didn\u2019t care. \n\nEver since then I never shared a nude to anyone, not even if they asked. I in return never asked for nudes from girls but I\u2019d get them anyway. I also made a couple of sex tapes here and there. But when the relationship was over, everything got deleted. Nothing ever left my phone and for 4 some odd years no girl ever had a picture of video of my nudes on their phones. \n\nFast forward to the end of my sophomore year in college, I meet a girl and we date in secret. We were making dinner at her place and my phone goes off. It\u2019s a message from my ex with a nude asking me to come over. She broke up with me 3 months prior and I met this new girl a month after that. I\u2019m an open book so I showed her the text and picture, she called my ex from my phone and told her to fuck off. We hadn\u2019t gone public yet, so no one knew. I could tell she was kind of mad, but we talked through it over dinner, watched a movie, she went for a shower. While I saw sitting there I get another message and it\u2019s from her, in the shower, naked, with the words come here. I run to the shower and immediately it\u2019s hot foreplay. I end up carrying her to her bed and start eating her out. I\u2019m making eye contact with her and stuff and she says \u201cfuck me\u201d. I get up, reach over to the night stand for a condom and her phone is propped up on it, recording the entire thing. I step back for a second not sure how to react because of what happened before. She asked me if it was okay, and me realizing the hypocrisy of saying no wouldn\u2019t be fair so I went along with it. The sex was great and at certain points she\u2019d tell me to film this and that, her blowing me, doggy style, etc. I finally finish and we collapse together on the bed. \n\nShe then stops the recording on her phone and she starts watching it right in front of me. There\u2019s scenes where it\u2019s me clear as day, full on boner, face and all. I ask her if she\u2019s going to delete it and she asks why. I tell her my previous story and she says if I want to delete it I can. I tell her it\u2019s not my phone and it\u2019s her decision, and that I trust her. She then disclosed the fact she had never sent a nude or made a sex tape in her life, and I was blown away.  She pretty much made the argument that you made. She felt it was demeaning to her and that it could be used as a weapon against her. I then said I would delete the nude she sent to me, and she said no. She said that seeing my exs nude made her feel less of herself, and that she wanted to be the person to do that with me. She had been asked by one previous boyfriend of THREE YEARS for a nude and she said no. But after 2 months she did it on her own accord. She also mentioned that she now has a weapon against me and I actually laughed at it. I think after that sex tape, we actually grew closer and I felt like this is the way it\u2019s supposed to be. Opening up to one another in a way that no one else will get to experience.\n\nWe started sharing nudes like crazy, because she\u2019s the most beautiful and smart girl I\u2019ve ever met in my life and she turns me on like nothing else. Then for me, she wanted to see my body and my meat stick. I\u2019d honestly say it opened up another level to the relationship that I didn\u2019t know was possible. Because even though I felt \u201cat risk\u201d, the conversations and emotions I shared with her were above all better than anything else I\u2019d ever experienced and our sex life went through the roof. \n\nHowever, all good things come to an end. We mutually broke up after college graduation due to the distance of our new jobs (legit halfway across the planet). We didn\u2019t talk about deleting stuff, but I did it anyway out of respect. Fast forward 5 years, we hadn\u2019t talked a word, and she comes back due to COVID. She immediately calls me up the first night she\u2019s back and we get coffee. We talk about our lives apart and I disclose everything. She says she dated one guy after me for again 3 years, and declined his proposal. We pick up like we never left, and we start reminiscing of everything. 4 hours have gone by and it\u2019s 1 in the morning, and the manager asks if we can leave after we finish our coffee to close up. She says to me \u201cbefore we go, do you remember this?\u201d. She shows me the phone and it\u2019s the fucking sex tape from 7 years ago. I\u2019m bewildered and I\u2019m like you didn\u2019t delete it? I deleted all my stuff. She said don\u2019t you remember? I needed a weapon against you, and maybe I can make another. Boom we go back to my place and another sex tape is born. \n\nThe funny part was for both of us we never sent a nude to our partners. We got married last month, and yes, another sex tape was made lol. So to finish your argument, it really depends on the person you\u2019re with, but also the confidence in yourself. Being at both ends of the spectrum and everywhere inbetween, I see it different than I did back in high school. Sure having every guy and girl in my school seeing my dick was annoying. A lot of high fives from dudes and girls trying to sleep with me got old. But with my now wife, it changed the dynamic of our relationship into something different. I feel corny saying it was something \u201csacred\u201d but it felt that way.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeho5ut",
                    "author": "gregbrahe",
                    "body": "Not everybody cares nearly as much as you might if other people might have nudes of them. If you haven't noticed, there is a massive industry centered around that. For the people who are very nervous about what might happen if things turn sour, it might not be a good idea, but for people who would respond to nudes, being shared in some other fashion, like perhaps simply saying, \"I'm an adult and can take nude photos of myself if I want.\" it is much less of an issue.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehoxm3",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": ">For the people who are very nervous about what might happen if things turn sour, it might not be a good idea\n\nThat's basically repeating a summary of my OP back to me. I also said my view doesn't include people who are fine with anyone and everyone seeing the pics.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jeho5ut"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehqf4w",
                    "author": "Nemrodh",
                    "body": "Or if maybe if people stopped caring about what other people think of other peoples naked bodies. its not like its anything special. its just your body.\n\nStop making being naked sexual. its not. We at one point in human history before religion said being naked was bad. we as a species didn't wear more then needed to survive.\n\nTo many do and I really feel like if people normalized going topless or the occasion brief nudity  on tv and actual sex education that pictured the human body as a whole, I think it would help cause a more healthy acceptance to the human body.\n\nIMO I could be wrong but I feel like this all stems form religions fanatics once again telling us its wrong to be human.. \n\n​\n\nOn a different note I've never asked for a nude from a woman.. If I get to see her naked it was meant to be. Any nudes I have received I've neve shared. soo never give something up you cant get back unless your willing for the whole world to see.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehqi7b",
                    "author": "imnotlibel",
                    "body": "Collect me like a trophy",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehrkw1",
                    "author": "Ok-Yak825",
                    "body": "Have you ever been to a nude beach? Why do you care so much if someone, somewhere might see you naked?",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehwx93",
                    "author": "-saphyra-",
                    "body": "Not even that your relationship changes but like social media and any messaging app even encrypted ones CAN and either HAVE or WILL be hacked. Your nudes will get leaked",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jehxxay",
                    "author": "jenovakitty",
                    "body": "Even if you're performing in porn and doing sex work online.. arguably you don't want nudes out there willy-nilly because it detracts from how much money you can make.. there is no reason why somebody can't exploit you to make a dollar if you're famous especially",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jei1ibi",
                    "author": "SpaceWizard360",
                    "body": "i agree that it\u2019s a bad idea, and i\u2019d add that it\u2019s still a bad idea even if you trust them completely because their phone/online storage could get hacked/stolen etc.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jei27nw",
                    "author": "MontyPorygon",
                    "body": "Only if you have a sense of shame about your body. It was shared with them with your consent. They shared it without your consent and thus the fault is on them. Ones own nude body is not a crime, or anything to be ashamed of, IMO.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jei63pu",
                    "author": "SnuffleShuffle",
                    "body": "I don't think it would be a tragedy if someone found my nudes online. The risk is small compared to the reward.\n\nRemember the leaks of nudes from famous actresses? The media wrote about it, maybe some horny pervs looked the pictures up, but most people couldn't care less and everybody forgot about it at this point. That's how big of a deal leaked nudes are.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jei8yym",
                    "author": "Minxmorty",
                    "body": "Just share nudes with everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeidfa4",
                    "author": "LarousseNik",
                    "body": "I'm not certain whether my argument about risk assessment falls under your \"will not work\" category, but I'm going to try anyway.\n\nI didn't manage to find any statistics about it, so I'll just outline my view based on the assumption on which I operate in my daily life. If we look at possible scenarios, there's, say, 99% chance (imo even more, but it doesn't really matter) of everything going ok and you having a fun time with your partner and your relationship deepening etc.; another 1% is everything going wrong and you becoming a victim of revenge porn and having to go through embarrassment for a couple of weeks. It is hard to calculate the exact amount of \"weight\" these two scenarios have, but for that decision to not be worth it the potential cons have to be 99 times more impactful on your life than the potential pros \u2014 which I personally don't find likely given how the negative scenario is so quickly passing and not too impactful on your life.\n\nObviously, there are scenarios where this math doesn't quite work that way \u2014 for example among teenagers or in highly religious countries/communities, where such leak would lead to being ostracised, harassed and bullied by people around you and your personal reputation tanking despite not being the one at fault there. In these situations, where the negative scenario brings much more grave consequences than usual, you surely should assess it carefully to understand whether such potentially life-breaking risk is worth the enjoyment (probably not, but it varies). \n\nAlso keep in mind that the worse your circle's views on nudes is, the bigger the chance of them being leaked \u2014 your ex probably wouldn't do it if they knew that such act would lead to you suffering a minor inconvenience while getting a lot of support from other people. Add to this that in such circles the act of leaking nudes is usually seen as more morally repugnant, so the person doing this would themselves become a target for criticism and lose a lot of goodwill \u2014 which lowers the chances of them doing this even more.\n\nSo this is a kind of a feedback loop, resulting in two separate kinds of situations: in one, sharing nudes won't devastate your life even in the worst case scenario, and this scenario is extremely unlikely to happen; in the other, sharing nudes is a risky endeavour which could bring grave consequences and such consequences are relatively more likely to happen. I'm going to hazard a guess that, given your views on this, you're living in the second type of society/social circle\u2014 in which case I do agree with you that it's probably best to avoid sending any nudes if possible.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeih9zw",
                    "author": "MapIndependent8085",
                    "body": "Yeah.. one time I took some pretty wild nudes to some dude I was dating for a few weeks.. then he and I split ways but I still had the pics on my computer. Fast forward about a month or two I went on this one date with a guy I met named Tim.. who turned out to be super into feet. This was very off putting and i actually kicked him super hard in the balls when he tried to do some weird shit with my feet. He didn\u2019t even budge.. which was bizarre to me but I told him to leave. Fast forward another month or two I heard a rustle in my window. Some motherfucker was halfway into my window at like 4 am. I called the cops, who found him limping down the street all dirty and beat up. I guess my neighbors dog didn\u2019t care for him. Smart dog.\nIt was foot guy. My laptop was gone, but nothing else was taken and he didn\u2019t try to hurt me or anything.. but I did hit him over the head with the towel rack as he left. Later that week, I went into work one day at my dads HVAC company where I was paid to sit in a desk all day and pretend to be accomplishing things.. just moving papers around, really. I didn\u2019t expect what ended up happening.\nMy dad called me into the conference room, where about 15 blown up images printed from the office printer sat laid out for me to see. I walked into the room, and my dad was staring at me with his arms crossed. A look I can\u2019t even describe on his face.. he looked like that famous picture of Abraham Lincoln. He said \u201cwhat are these?\u201d I meandered over and looked.. to my horror they were my wild nudes. All of them. My own asshole stared me in the face as I looked at him and asked why he decided to print them out and where he got them. \nHe said I emailed them to him, both of my grandpas and every uncle in my family. \nFoot dude sent them from the stolen laptop. \nMy grandpa man\u2026 he never said a word about it but I can\u2019t imagine he was pleased. \nAnyway yeah, you never know what can happen. Don\u2019t do it , I say.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeihbh8",
                    "author": "Emmanuel_G",
                    "body": "I guess it depends on the circumstances. I have been married for 10 years and my wife grew up in the Soviet Union, which means she is very bad at technology and still has no cell phone or computer and doesn't know how to use them. So for us, sharing photos with one another consists of sharing physical photos that have to be developed first. So there isn't much that could go wrong in this case.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeiklg4",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "It seems like you have a saddeningly low view of peoples ability to form trusting romantic relationships.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeiktr5",
                    "author": "Lifeinstaler",
                    "body": "I\u2019d like to change your view in a specific way. You mention that there can be a number of relationships that can know each other enough for the risk to be small but you talk about his as a hypothetical or an extreme case. \n\nYou also have specifically included spouses and long term relationships in your definitions. \n\nThe thing is that while most relationships are short ones, long term ones aren\u2019t that rare. You do concede that for people who know each other for decades that trust is there to know that the other person won\u2019t show their nudes but I think decades is excessive here (Also a bit imprecise, did you mean 10, 20, 30 years?). \n\nIs that much time needed to know your partner won\u2019t do something that bad if you break up? Cause people take big life defining decisions regarding their partners way before that, and I\u2019d argue reasonable so.\n\nI\u2019m taking about financial decisions, whether to relocate, buying a house together, getting married, having kids, etc. \n\nI would say that around 5 years would be enough time to know a partner so that you can trust them enough to send nudes with virtually no risk. \n\nOkay but still most relationships aren\u2019t that long, and short relationships, outnumber long ones by orders of magnitude, especially considering one night stands. \n\nBut I\u2019m not sure that\u2019s the best way of looking at it. Cause a significant number of people still are in long term relationships at a given time.\n\n[45% of American adults are married.](https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/fewer-than-50-of-u-s-adults-are-now-married-its-time-to-give-more-legal-and-financial-breaks-to-single-people-law-professor-says-11664992681)\n\nAlso, about 50% of marriages end in divorce. \n\nThat gives you a decent number of people who won\u2019t get divorced. Over 22.5% cause there are people who remarry. Then there\u2019s those who will divorce but after being together many years. Then there\u2019s unmarried couples that have been together for long as well. \n\nI think your title still holds by this metric. That most couples don\u2019t have this strong level of trust. But the text of your post suggested to me that you believed the numbers of couples who do to be super small, and that\u2019s what I wanted to challenge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeirb5w",
                    "author": "Chrysos-89",
                    "body": "Since a lot of people commenting are part of the generation that doesn't do it, i'll speak for the generation that does\n\n1. They're too young and stupid to think of the consequences\n2. They just want some ez sexual intimacy \n3. They're being manipulated (easy to be at a young age)\n4. They trust the person (again, easy to do at a young age) \n\nAs someone who's received some in past, no longer standing relationships, a lot of mine have just been through trust. Not in the relationship but in the person, and that's normally what happens. What you see over the internet is the 1%  of idiots, as you would anything else. \n\nI believe it's fine, as long as you know what you're doing and are well aware of the consequences. Most of these people who make these mistakes are just young & dumb anyway",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jej0938",
                    "author": "Poly_and_RA",
                    "body": "I think your conclusions here are overly negative;\u00a0and the reasons is that you systematically in multiple distinct ways overeestimate risks, underestimate rewards and/or present things in a tendentious way that leads you towards the conclusion that sharing nudes is a bad idea.\n\nIn no particular sequence, here's some examples:\n\n* You say that a partner is \"typically\" a hookup or short-term fuckbuddy but can also ignore longer-term more committed people. Reality is that most people rarely or never have any hookups or fuck-buddies;\u00a0and the ones that do tend to **not** refer to those people as \"partners\". I'd say the word \"partner\" **typically** refers to a person you're having a committed longer-term romantic and sexual relationship with. I mention this not because the semantics matter as such, but because what kinda person you have in your head when you talk about \"sharing nudes with partners\" makes a difference for the risk-evaluation.\n* There's a survivorship-bias in the risk of nudes leaking. (deliberately or accidentally) We're systematically more likely to get to hear about it, the more devastating a leak is. In contrast the huuuuuge number of people who share nudes with one or more partners, and never have anything bad happen as a result are people you'll **not** get to read about in the news, or hear about in gossip in your social circles. The 1 person that is a friend-of-a-friend and had her nudes leaked in revenge-porn, you'll hear about. The 300 people who are friends-of-a-friend and shared nudes with one or more partners, but with no ill effect; you'll probably never be told about.\n* The Internet means people socialize with and get to know people that are more likely to not be local to them than used to be the case. Some of these people start a sexual and/or romantic relationship. Ways of sharing intimacy without being physically together matter to many of these people. In other words, there's a higher count of people these days than a generation ago who can only see one or more of their partners nude by way of nude pictures. In other words; the upside has grown.\n* Whether or not  a leak would be devastating isn't a binary \"yes or no\" question, instead it's a \"more or less\"\u00a0question. Most people would *prefer* that their nudes be kept private, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the end of the world if some leak. There's a lot less stigma and taboo around things like premarital sex these days than there used to be, so for many people, the potential loss in forms like loss of social status and/or shaming is smaller than it used to be.\n* Most people are fairly average-looking, and anyone who's ever shared a public pool with us can already make a reasonably good guess as to what we'd look like naked. Unless you're a celebrity, odds are very few will care about your nudes existing online. (I realize you might become one in the future even if you're not one today, but MOST people won't have that happen to them)\n* Demographics matter. Your claim applies to people in general. But reality is that while there's a fair amount of interest in the bodies of young women, the same thing just isn't true for many other demographics. I'm a somewhat overweight man in the middle of my 40ies. No market at all exists for nude pictures of bodies like mine. The odds that any nudes depicting me, if leaked, would be spread widely is correspondingly smaller.\n* Culture matter. In some cultures, mostly conservative ones that still put a high premium on things like virginity and \"purity\" for young women, having nudes leaked could be very bad. But other cultures that have a high degree of acceptance for things like young sexuality and nudity would be a lot less bad. So people who are from higher-tolerance cultures have less reason to fear nudes leaked.\n* Online spaces give safe avenues for exploring branches of sexuality that might be more difficult or risky to explore in the physical world. Getting to know yourself and your sexuality better has value in and by itself as sexuality is a source of joy and bonding for most people. Images convey things in ways different from text and adds value to these spaces. (places such as Fetlife). Many people share nudes with their face obscured, this doesn't guarantee that nobody recognize them of course, but it reduces the risk quite a bit. \n* Stories about ex-partners suffer from the same survivorship-bias I told you about above: we're a lot more likely to get to hear the stories where things go HORRIBLY\u00a0wrong, than we are to get to hear the stories where a breakup is handled in an okay way. We shouldn't make the mistake of believing this means MOST\u00a0breakups go horrible wrong though; instead it's like any accident or disaster: If a million people do something, and it ends in disaster for 5 of them, guess which ones you're most likely to hear about.\n* You're assuming people generally are fairly adversarial about exes. This happens sometimes but isn't a universal truth. I specifically asked 3 of my ex-partners that I do have nudes of whether they would prefer it if I delete the files. All of them said they're perfectly happy for me to have the pictures; the pictures represent good memories of good relationships to wonderful people, and there's nothing to be ashamed of in them. I feel the same way about the nudes depicting me that exist in the hands of some of my ex-partners.\n\nMy overall thinking on this is that there are both advantages and risks to sharing nudes. It's smart to consider the possible ramifications before doing it; but it's important to try to have a realistic view of the actual risks as opposed to falling prey to moral panic. \n\nFor many people, especially people who aren't in any of the highest-risk groups, the potential downsides of a leak are modest. If your honest judgement is that a leak would result in no more than modest temporary embarassment, that's not necessarily a huge deal. (but only you can judge that in your own life!)\n\nRoughly 2/3rds of the partners I've had in my life have been comfortable with sharing nudes. I'm completely certain that zero of them have regretted it. To me it seems as if most people make fairly reasonable evaluations about this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jej2dcn",
                    "author": "FlickoftheTongue",
                    "body": "I would argue it has nothing to do with the relationship status or longevity, but instead on the maturity of the person you are sharing them with and whether or not they can be an adult. \n\n\n\"Being an adult\" in this cause would really just be upholding the understanding that those nudes are for your eyes only unless express consent is given by the person who is in them prior to sharing them no matter how the relationship goes because they were shared under certain pretexts that are independent of the relationship status.\n\nThe above being said, being able to judge the maturity level of a person is really hard and generally comes with experience in a relationship. These are partly correlated, but I'd also argue that if people critically analyzed the actions of people they are in a relationship with the same lens that you do strangers on the street, and not under the combo of blinding drugs your brain produces to blind you to truths to help multiply the race, people would see these earlier and would exit sooner.\n\nDitto if we properly educated people on toxic relationships and what that looks like.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jej45v4",
                    "author": "Mad__Hermit",
                    "body": "To a point I agree, but that could be said for many things. Sharing finances, access to sensitive information, giving a house key, knowing where you work, etc. A vengeful ex can cause issues with any and all of those, and many could be far worse than having some potentially embarrassing pictures exposed to the internet.\n\nI think it is a relatively minor issue that stems more from a person's own shame than anything.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jejaxbi",
                    "author": "Master-Training-3477",
                    "body": "I agree with this \ud83d\udcaf.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jek1mep",
                    "author": "GawdSamit",
                    "body": "I just leave my face out of it. I've never had an issue. You're welcome to it if you find it, probably won't be hot forever.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jek7k9q",
                    "author": "ThenLeg1210",
                    "body": "I would say three things regarding the severity of leaking/leaked nudes and the potential risk of it happening.\n\n1. Firstly, sending nudes is a mutual risk exchange. If you leak someone's nudes, you are very likely to have your own leaked, too. While I'm sure there are people who don't care if their own nudes get leaked, I'd imagine most people wouldn't be willing to take this risk. In this sense, the risk of leaking is perhaps lower than generally perceived\n\n2. If you're known to be someone with integrity, leaking nudes will be just as terrible for your reputation as having them leaked. In my case, being the leaker would be awful for my reputation because people know me as being trustworthy, open, and straightforward. I'd be more likely to lose friends and family as the leaker than the leakee, meaning not leaking is the sensible option. The potential risk of leaking can be largely mitigated by the personality traits of the receiver of your nudes\n\n3. Plenty of people (like myself) really couldn't care less who sees my d**k, and I very highly doubt any of my friends or family would care either. I understand that there are lots of communities where this could be crippling socially. But likewise, for people like me, the risk of my nudes getting leaked doesn't outweigh the joy. \n3.1 In come communities (like a certain app that some gay men use) nudes are so minor that they're almost a greeting, completely removing any sense of severity surrounding them. In such circumstances and communities, the severity is very low",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jekex2q",
                    "author": "Between3-20Chars",
                    "body": "It might not be so bad if you dont have any personally identifying components in the photo like your face, tattoos, piercing, photos of friends/family in the background, etc. \n\nAlso, one can share pics that can only be viewed once. Snapchat and whatsapp have those features, im sure other apps might too. There is also a notification to the sender of the photograph in case the receiver tries to take a screenshot. \n\nThis limits your risk of exposure, while allowing you to indulge in seeing and being seen by your partner, even when youre not together. Since your risk of exposure is almost 0 here, its no longer a bad idea. \n\nEg, i take this one step further and even erase erotic text chains to avoid exposure.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jekkgcv",
                    "author": "Keljhan",
                    "body": ">extremely rare couples who have earned each other's trust\n\nOP, this is not a normal opinion to have.  Most committed couples trust each other.  You think it's reasonable to trust someone with sex but not nudes?",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jekm1uh",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "I don't really have anything to add to what I posted already on that question.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jekkgcv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jel1rx6",
                    "author": "Euphoric-Beat-7206",
                    "body": "Only a small percentage of people will do something shady with your nudes. Over 95% of people should not be an asshole about it. So, there is always some risk, but you would also have nudes of them presumably.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jel2306",
                    "author": "IfallInLove2easily",
                    "body": "nah it's good, feel free to send me some ;)))",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeliast",
                    "author": "nacnud_uk",
                    "body": "It's a body. If anyone gets to see it and cares, that's their thing. I wear Speedos at the swimming. What the fuck do you think I'm hiding?\n\nNudity is not the end of the world.",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jeloi1g",
                    "author": "throwuptrashpanda",
                    "body": "100% agree",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jembn3l",
                    "author": "DrPeterWick",
                    "body": "I believe it can be a good idea if you use all protection available and you trust your partner enough",
                    "date": "2023-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jemsa31",
                    "author": "CapableDistance5570",
                    "body": "If you define that as a bad idea so can literally anything in a relationship that requires trust where you can easily be backstabbed. It's unnatural to stop doing things just because it could backfire. Especially it's not really consequential. There's literally been people in politics that have accidentally showed their cock or something on a Zoom call and similar situations and it's not a big deal. The risks are low, the rewards are a healthier relationship and life.",
                    "date": "2023-04-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jemzprj",
                    "author": "hullcleaner",
                    "body": "I was someone who was a very young teen and didn\u2019t really understand because my parents couldn\u2019t be bothered to teach about sex/consent. I was learning I was receiving more acceptance/validation online. Then I was blackmailed.\n\nIt\u2019s been many years but this post doesn\u2019t really help my situation. If anything, it just rubs the past in my face and it just makes me wish I was dead.",
                    "date": "2023-04-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "127xrwi",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "In most cases, for most people, sharing nudes of yourself with someone is a bad idea. The shorter and less committed the relationship, the worse of an idea it is. My view does not necessarily apply to or include people who are comfortable with anyone and everyone seeing their nudes. For example, if you earn money performing in porn of some sort or posing nude for publications, it *might not* be such a bad idea for you.\n\nIt is a bad idea primarily because there is a risk that your relationship will change in a way that makes you regret giving this person your nudes. For example, your consent to intimacy with you has been withdrawn, but they still possess and control intimate pictures or video of you. This alone can make it a bad idea for some. In more extreme cases, the ex might share those pictures (intentionally or unwittingly) somehow or, in the most extreme cases, perpetrate some kind of revenge porn situation. My view is not confined to either end of that continuum.\n\nIf you are a person who would not want a significant number of people, in the present or in the future, to see you undressed and/or doing something intimate, my view applies to you. Don't give anyone control over your nudes.\n\nDefinitions:\n\n* \"partner\" Typically a relatively shorter-term fuck buddy or hookup but also to include a boyfriend, girlfriend, significant other, wife, husband, etc. There's no use putting a number on the length of relationship or trying to gauge the commitment in the relationship as I am more inclined to believe that it's just a bad idea for everyone, but I say \"for most people\" because I allow that there are some extremely rare couples out there who've earned each other's trust.\n* \"nudes\" Any photo, video, or other reproductions of yourself under intimate circumstances that can be removed from your control--for example, some state of undress and/or doing something sexual--that you would not want shared without restriction. A common way of expressing this is a \"picture you wouldn't want your grandma to see.\" But it's really up to the individual to decide what kind of material fits this category. My view is inclusive in this area, not exclusive.\n\nThe kinds of evidence and arguments that *might* change my mind or cause me to readjust my view includes, but is not limited to:\n\n* Evidence (hard evidence - data) that most people don't mind if *anyone*\\--their parents, coworkers, their children, friends, and innumerable random masturbators could have access to pictures of them nude. This is at least plausible because I've heard claims that young people care much less about privacy in general than older people, but I've never seen the claim substantiated yet. But I am not going to be satisfied with just an assertion or anecdotal evidence.\n* Evidence (or solid reasoning) that those who had been victimized by things like revenge porn were not actually hurt by the distribution of their nudes. Or that trusting someone with nudes means you somehow deserve to have them distributed widely, outside your control and beyond your original intention when they were made.  I doubt anyone would or could make this argument, but for completeness, I am adding it.\n* Thoroughly supported, well-organized arguments that the benefits of sharing nudes is well worth the risks for most people--i.e., the typical person with fairly average values and priorities. Similar to #1 above. You'd need to thoroughly and methodically walk me through it. A drive-by assertion won't cut it.\n\nThe kinds of arguments that **will certainly not** change my view include:\n\n* Semantic games--nitpicking over definitions and my choice of words.\n* Yeah-buts, what-abouts, and edge cases. My view is not absolute. I know there are rare exceptions. For example, I can imagine there are some couples out there whose relationship is probably measured in decades rather than years, months, or weeks, who have earned each other's trust well enough that the benefits might be worth it. Allowing photos of yourself naked to be used in medical textbooks or studies, or something along those lines, does not fall under the rubric either.\n* Arguments about morality. My view is not based on the idea that sharing nudes is immoral.\n* Rarity. Arguments that abuse of sharing nudes (e.g., revenge porn) are too rare to matter.\n* Any form of calling me a prude or \"not with the times\" without plenty of support. By itself, that's circular. You'd need to support the argument.\n\n\\----------\n\nEdit after one day:\n\nThanks to all who participated. I have given out a number of deltas to some very thoughtful and helpful posts that didn't really cause me to reverse my view entirely, but that is far too high a bar for a CMV like this. I was fortunate that some offered well-supported arguments that simply helped me reconsider the weights in the risk-reward ratio. Some also added information about the whole nudes thing that I either didn't know or hadn't thought of. \n\nSo, another big thanks to everyone who participated constructively. \n\nI won't be reading any further responses very carefully -- i.e., I will look at the preview in notifications only enough to see if something looks promising by way of covering new ground. I am still happy to discuss any fresh ideas. \n\n**But life is full of all kinds of risks that we take every day!**\n\nTo potentially save you some time, one argument I can add to *\"The kinds of arguments that will certainly not change my view:\"* Basically, any form of \"other risks are worth taking, so this risk is worth taking too.\"\n\nI do agree that some risks are worth taking. But *each risk needs to be assessed individually*. \n\nAnd there are also risks that I would not take, such as skydiving, that I would not claim are a bad idea for everyone. Each person gets to decide, and in my original CMV, I left room for those who are certain they could never care, etc.\n\nBut *risks differ from each other also in the fact that risk is not static nor immediate*. Neither can one know all the factors for evaluating all risks. For example, smoking your first cigarette is unlikely to produce any life changing consequences over the first few days, but there's a good chance that you can end up addicted, with cancer or heart disease, and that even if you are okay accepting those risks at 18, you don't know how you'll feel about them at 48 or what kinds of things you might find out about your health history that change the risk equation. Anyway, that is why I can tell you that smoking cigarettes is a bad idea for most people, but I won't tell you that skydiving is a bad idea for most people, even though I would not jump out of a perfectly good plane. I don't think you can make a fully informed choice about smoking that first cigarette to the extent you can make a fully informed choice about jumping out of an airplane.\n\nSo, here's the difference between something like skydiving and sharing nudes. You know after about five minutes of jumping out the plane whether there will be consequences. Your choice to take the risk today is not going to come back to bite you 20 years from now. With sharing nudes, there is virtually no short-term risk. The risk of regret is complicated by the fact that, *especially for younger people, circumstances, priorities, opportunities, and values will change over time.* But with someone else controlling pics of you, your capacity to mitigate risks pretty much vanishes in the short term and there's not much you can do, over time, to keep those pics out of the wrong hands. At least with cigarettes, you can stop anytime you want if you can overcome the nicotine addiction. I discuss this in a little more depth in some of my responses to delta posts.",
                    "date": "2023-03-31",
                    "score": 895,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Sharing nudes of yourself with a partner is a bad idea for most people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/127xrwi/cmv_sharing_nudes_of_yourself_with_a_partner_is_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1cspo",
                    "author": "couldbemage",
                    "body": "Blanket excluding rarity makes your entire post disingenuous.\n\nYou aren't arguing that sharing nudes is morally wrong, but rather the consequences of them being leaked is unacceptable.\n\nRarity is absolutely critical to judging any risk. \n\nIf that was a valid boundary condition, never go outside because (thing) might happen would be unassailable. Regardless of what that thing was.\n\nIf risk falls to near zero, there are no consequences.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "127xrwi"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf30ff4",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "If you thought my post was disingenuous, then you are accusing me of posting it in bad faith, in which case your time writing a response would be wasted. If you go through my responses to other users, you might see how I have addressed your objection. But I have no time to discuss it with someone who began by accusing me of bad faith.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf1cspo"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12cij50",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 772,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf2juac",
                "author": "Mysterious-Art8838",
                "body": "Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings? Where on earth did you get that idea? Most networks go WALL TO WALL coverage for a MINIMUM of 2 days when there\u2019s a mass shooting, they literally ignore all other stories and all send correspondents to the site of the shooting. There are often media choppers live streaming video of kids running out of the school as it happens. They often release body cam footage of the actual shooting along with photos of any victim they can find (alive, just to clarify, not after they became victims) as well as interview survivors and families of the deceased. They even tell us when funerals are happening. It\u2019s like all shooting coverage all the time! Which I don\u2019t think is bad but it\u2019s just completely not consistent with what you seem to think.\n\nNot to mention our president or vice often pays a visit which draws even more coverage.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "12cij50"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfexiud",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings? Where on earth did you get that idea? Most networks go WALL TO WALL coverage for a MINIMUM of 2 days when there\u2019s a mass shooting, they literally ignore all other stories and all send correspondents to the site of the shooting. There are often media choppers live streaming video of kids running out of the school as it happens. They often release body cam footage of the actual shooting along with photos of any victim they can find (alive, just to clarify, not after they became victims) as well as interview survivors and families of the deceased. They even tell us when funerals are happening. It\u2019s like all shooting coverage all the time! Which I don\u2019t think is bad but it\u2019s just completely not consistent with what you seem to think.\n\n!delta\n\nI didn't realise that this is what the American media landscape is like. Here we see news of a mass shooting in the USA every fortnight or so, but if the American media landscape is like that, it sounds like the only news you'll hear is about mass shootings. It would take a lot of effort, which might seem like suppression, to decrease the coverage of mass shootings to the level we see here.",
                "date": "2023-04-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jf2juac"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfexkcm",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mysterious-Art8838 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Mysterious-Art8838)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jfexiud"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1jzav",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kyf4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?\n\nI am saying the latter. Say Joe Biden manages to pull off some masterful political puppeteering to enact gun control legislations similar to what John Howard did in 1996. It doesn't matter if it gets passed because past trends have shown us that the USA will experience panic buying of guns whenever there is a suspicion that gun control will be enacted.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1jzav"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kk0w",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run. \n\nThere is no reason to consider that spike to mean it's impossible, it barley matters in the larger scheme of things.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 39,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lcz8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run.\n\nFirstly, while this did happen in Australia, will this phenomenon necessarily happen too in the USA? \n\nSecondly, how many lives will it cost? Imagine the cops trying to seize guns from an angry gun owner - it would either result in a few cops getting killed, the gun owners getting killed, or both.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kk0w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kow3",
                    "author": "Squirt_memes",
                    "body": ">\tAny attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n\nI\u2019d say the gun control fails because it\u2019s very difficult to make a gun control bill that will pass all three branches of our government. Even just getting it past the representatives is quite difficult and the courts are unreceptive to violations of the second amendment. \n\n>\tMental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention,\n\nThat really depends what you mean by \u201cmass shooting\u201d. In your wiki list, I think there\u2019s 4 mass shooting so far this year that were unrelated to gang violence. And a couple dozen gang shooting that make it seem like mass shootings randomly happen all the time. \n\nGun violence is way bigger in America than most comparable countries, but it\u2019s really easy to let emotions cloud your brain. The vast majority of \u201cmass shootings\u201d pose no threat to normal people who don\u2019t live in a gang\u2019s turf. \n\n>\tSuppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI\u2019d say the media\u2019s obsession with coverage also makes it hard to know the true scale of the problem. It\u2019s crazy how many people I\u2019ll talk to who are TERRIFIED to send their kids to school. So I\u2019ll ask them \u201cdo you have any idea what the statistical chances are of a shooting involving your kid?\u201d Then they\u2019ll get pissed off and accuse me of hating children or something. \n\nThis whole issue is fed by a lack of objective information and a reliance on emotional arguments. \n\n>\tGiving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences\n\nYou need to go back a few decades if you want to claim violent video games increase violent activity without being made fun of. \n\n>\tThe USA\u2019s gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it\u2019s getting worse, if Wikipedia\u2019s list of mass shootings is to be believed.\n\nIt is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims. \n\nSo what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 65,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lly5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims.  \n>  \n>So what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.\r  \n\r\n\nOK, but either way, this just goes to prove my point that I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem. While I didn't put it in the post details, gun control legislation can't fix the gang crime problem either.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kow3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1l307",
                    "author": "NelsonMeme",
                    "body": "> Firstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it).\n\nThis doesn\u2019t make sense.\n\nFirst, it isn\u2019t true. The U.S. developed the rudiments of its gun culture living in frontiers, where guns were commonly used as weapons in armed combat or to secure game. This culture further developed when we forcefully secured our independence. \n\nAustralia is independent, did not have to become so forcefully, and did not develop our same culture after independence.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2fp1v",
                    "author": "NegroniHater",
                    "body": "The Wild West is a myth. And no, gun culture started in America when the second right guaranteed to every American is keeping and bearing arms. Gun control was created to keep former slaves from having those rights, which for almost 100 years had never been touched by the government. \n\nFucking Ben Franklin said you shouldn\u2019t go for a walk without a gun, Thomas Jefferson said guns stop homicides, George Washington said every American [probably only meant men] should be armed and trained. It\u2019s always been part of American culture, and sure as fuck didn\u2019t start on an Italian movie set with Clint Eastwood, because you apparently think that\u2019s an accurate depiction of history.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf1l307"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1of4b",
                    "author": "ProLifePanda",
                    "body": ">As for solutions to the problem?\n\nSo just to start, there is no \"100% solution\" to gun violence, just like there's no \"100% solution\" to car crashes, knife stabbings, bar fights, etc. As long as something is allowed (like owning cars, guns, being able to drink, etc.) there will be some negative consequences. So there are no gun control laws or regulations that will reduce gun violence/deaths to 0 (or even close to it).\n\nBut a big improvement would be the implementation of pervasive \"red flag\" laws. Many of the school shootings you see are done by people who show red flags beforehand. The Oxford shooter was literally in the principal's office for being a suspected school shooter the day he did the shooting. The recent Tennessee shooter messaged her friends beforehand with concerning messages before the shooting. There are a lot of other examples, but that's the idea that if we can \"take the guns first, due process later\", we can stop some of the shootings by obviously troubled individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1sdva",
                    "author": "Purely_Theoretical",
                    "body": "You can't possibly red flag the Nashville shooter that sent messages just minutes beforehand. \n\nThe real problem with red flag laws is they brush aside due process.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1of4b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1r31m",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "\"Gun violence problem\" seems like newspeak - it's the sort of thing that politicians say when they want an emotional reaction but don't really want to say anything.   Can you describe what you mean by \"gun violence problem\" in more concrete terms?\nIs there some way to check whether the \"gun violence problem\" has been solved that isn't just \"I know it when I see it\"?  Suppose, for example, that there were no more shootings in school and no more breathless media coverage but homicide rates in inner cities continued to rise, would that be an improvement in the \"gun violence problem\" or not?\n\nDo you think that all of the gun control laws that were passed in the US over the last 40 years were credible attempts to address gun violence, or is it possible that at least some of them were political pandering instead?\n\n> ... The USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if Wikipedia's list of mass shootings is to be believed. ...\n\nAt the same time, the trend is toward the same or less gun ownership.  ( https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html ).   Do you think that gun availability has substantively changed in the US over the last 30 years?  Do you think that changes in \"mental health issues\" (more newspeak) and increased media coverage of gun violence explain all of the \"getting worse\" or not?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1s9cp",
                    "author": "pudding7",
                    "body": "I would assume that \"Gun violence problem\" means people being intentionally shot with a gun.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jf1r31m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1vtje",
                    "author": "oddball667",
                    "body": "USA is in a weird not so cold civil war, this will last generations and it will prevent any major issue from being resolved",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1xl7g",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "The first step to solving the gun problem is to make lobbying illegal.  Corporations also shouldn\u2019t be able to donate to campaigns.\n\nOnce you take NRA money out of the equation, it becomes much easier to tackle.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1yc6v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Lobbying is huge in Australia. If we can have gun control despite that, so can the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf1xl7g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zj9y",
                    "author": "Thintegrator",
                    "body": "This is correct. We Americans have finally accepted that gun violence is an integral part of the American experience and that children dying from gunshot wounds in our schools is a small price to pay for the right to own weapons designed to kill. It is our core freedom. Anyone who thinks otherwise just stay the fuck out of our country. We got this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zo34",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Are you being sarcastic or sincere?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jf1zj9y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zwpg",
                    "author": "trash332",
                    "body": "We like our guns.  I would like to see more stringent background checks and maybe 30 day wait periods,  but only because every mass shooter has purchased their guns legally. Really, some people have to be more honest about their crazy ass family members.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf21ioj",
                    "author": "Sandy_hook_lemy",
                    "body": "Nonsense. Why is it always \"it can't work in the US\"? Has it been tried? Literally worked for every country so why not the US?\n\nThis is the same type of shit I see for why America cant have railway systems like Europeans. Try it first let's see. It cant be worse than it is now",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf228mw",
                    "author": "blade740",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with this take - the US and Australia are VERY different, namely the fact that the US has SIGNIFICANTLY higher levels of firearm proliferation than Australia ever did.  While Australia's ban/buybacks were able to make firearms relatively scarce, the amount of guns that would need to be taken off the street in the US to get us to roughly the same level is something like 90%.  It's just not feasible.  \n\nThat said, there is one point from your post in particular I want to debate:\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI am not arguing for forcibly SUPPRESSING media coverage, but I do think that the media circus that surrounds these events is a HUGE factor in driving mass shootings due to the media contagion effect.  I think that some best practice guidelines for major media organizations to (hopefully) voluntarily follow could help reduce the level at which children are introduced and accustomed to the idea of \"mass shootings\" in the first place, similar to the way the press (voluntarily) covers suicides to minimize media contagion.  \n\nTo address your point, I don't believe that the kind of media coverage we have today is necessary (or even helpful) in measuring the \"full scale\" of the problem.  If anything the scale of the problem is blown vastly out of proportion by the outsized attention media gives to these events.  The scale of the problem should be measured by scientific studies and good data collection, not by public outrage created by clickbait-driven capitalist news organizations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf22xmj",
                    "author": "FearLeadsToAnger",
                    "body": "> Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nThis is a fundamental problem with the individualistic nature of 'the american dream' the lone ranger archetype, and the reinforcement of the view that everyone else is stupid and only I know what i'm doing.\n\nOur main new sources are hot on the themes of 'everyone else' being stupid, sneaky and selfish, so it's only fair for you to do it too - 'I gadda git ma own'.\n\nLike you say, mental healthcare isn't the solution, the whole of society needs to be reframed through a more compassionate lens before anything improves.\n\n> After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable\n\nMy point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun, which frankly is what a weapon of potential mass murder deserves anyway. Sure, people would still stash guns, but if all hell rains down you any time you get it out, you're never going to get it out and it becomes irrelevant anyway.\n\nThe whole shtick about protecting yourself from the government if it goes rogue is archaic, if the government turns on the people we're fucked either way, what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? Our strength is in our numbers, not our arms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2ov0s",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "> My point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun\n\n....Like we did with drugs and alcohol?\n\n> what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? \n\nAsymmetric warfare can be a bitch. a fun poem about it: https://twitter.com/Huff4Congress/status/1623747713316581376",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jf22xmj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf233c7",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "[Stronger gun policies are associated with lower rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989)\n\n[96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases](http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)\n\n[There are things experts agree will work that the public also supports](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html)\n\n> [After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0\u00b739 [95% CI 0\u00b723\u20130\u00b767]; p=0\u00b7001), ammunition background checks (0\u00b718 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b736]; p<0\u00b70001), and identification requirement for firearms (0\u00b716 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b729]; p<0\u00b70001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10\u00b735 to 4\u00b746 deaths per 100\u2008000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1\u00b799 per 100\u2008000, and firearm identification to 1\u00b781 per 100\u2008000.](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2901026-0/abstract)\n\nWe even know what we need to do to get it:\n\n[46% of gun owners in the NRA have contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[15% of gun owners not in the NRA have ever contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[The NRA is powerful, but not because of its money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf23ea6",
                    "author": "HomoSupremacy",
                    "body": ">As an Australian\n\nDon't care",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf252f2",
                    "author": "Thebrotherleftbehind",
                    "body": "As an American, and former Republican, I want to disclose, I want gun control. That being said, democrats are just as much to blame for the lack of gun control as republicans.\n\nOutside of domestic violence involving guns, I think the biggest problem we have with guns are the \u201cmass\u201d shootings. The problem is, they group all shootings in together. Suicide is also considered as homicide in gun stats. That is misleading and makes you seem untrustworthy. If two rival gangs get in a shootout, let\u2019s stop calling that a mass shooting. If someone writes a manifesto and shoots up a school, that to me is a mass shooting.\n\nYou don\u2019t solve gun violence with gangs by banning them, you tackle the socioeconomic issues that create the gangs in the first place.\n\nThe gun control conversation needs to be had with a MULTI pronged approach with clear definitions of what we are attributing to the violence and how to stop each thing. Yeah republicans offer thoughts and prayers instead of gun control legislation (sometimes going the opposite way in fact, Florida anyone?), and democrats use misleading and false information instead of legislation. We really need more parties in the USA.\n\nI see a lot of the same problems in both parties. Most of the elected officials on both sides say what their constituents want them to say, but what they actually do is really all about themselves and stayed in power. Yes dnc, you have the same problem as the gop, ie aoc. Aoc is all about aoc and will always be about aoc. But she\u2019s very social media savvy and knows what to say to her constituents. Look at how she speaks depending on the color of the skin of her audience. I\u2019ll admit, the dnc is slightly better, like with the Texas cold snap etc, but call me jaded, but to me I think they just have better marketing than the gop. I admit between the two though, I hate the gop much much more",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4lir3",
                    "author": "johnhtman",
                    "body": "Mass shootings are one of the least serious problems when it comes to guns or homicides. Going by the FBI numbers between 2000-2019 they averaged 53.1 people killed a year, with 2017 being the deadliest year with 138 people killed, 60 in the Vegas Shooting alone. That same year a total of 17,294 people were murdered, which means mass shootings during the worst year on record were responsible for 0.8% of total murders.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jf252f2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2550y",
                    "author": "Ok-Independent-5782",
                    "body": "American's will never give up their firearms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf27z5d",
                    "author": "yelkca",
                    "body": "For those of us who live here, giving up isn't really an option. But thanks for your input",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ywsa",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Look, I'm getting a lot of commenters whose points boil down to \"*[ackshually, it's all a gang problem](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf1kow3?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\" or \"*[we need guns to defend ourselves](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf2fhr9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\", or \"*[look at Chicago's problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf3hmn9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\". How can I rebut them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf27z5d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf29m7m",
                    "author": "El_Burrito_Grande",
                    "body": "There's a solution to mass shootings, at least. It's in your post. The people who do it get attention. The media facilitates that. There were a lot of guns before mass shootings became such a big trend. THE reason there are so many school shootings/mass shootings is the rise of the sensationalistic 24 hour news cycle/social media. It's a copycat thing/trend. If the media squelched it and didn't talk about the shooters it would die down. It's THE solution. I don't see that happening though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2e3af",
                    "author": "Character_Ad_7058",
                    "body": "The main reason there cannot be *ANY* effective control on guns in the US is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and the broad court precedents in interpreting it.) In the US, for example, if we tried such a buyback program we would react as you indicated, in terms of selling record amounts of new guns and ammunition. But, an additional reaction (that makes such a program a non-starter) is that funding for it would never be approved. Even if, my some miracle, it did, it would be extremely vulnerable to a court challenge and would eventually be denied.\n\nFew other nations have such a supreme, blanket right to guns as we have in the US. And, we\u2019re essentially stuck with it because the only option would be to further amend the constitution, which is a non-starter as it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of State Legislatures.) Such a majority in either State or Federal legislatures just isn\u2019t conceivable in the foreseeable future.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2euoo",
                    "author": "NuJoisi",
                    "body": "There's no way for you to get an actual reply or information from Reddit, the real information is banned.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f2pz",
                    "author": "ShutYourDumbUglyFace",
                    "body": "I don't have any idea what the solution is to our problem (I mean, I think it's making it harder to buy a gun - but I have no idea how we get there), but I will say that I don't think it stems from the revolution. I think it's more related to the Wild West and the glorification of the perceived violence and lawlessness - and fierce independence - that pervaded that era. The irony is that most towns at that time, in the west, [were gun-free](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/) and you had to leave your firearm with the sheriff. \n\nThis narrative ties in with the (false) narrative that guns increase safety. In the Wild West, there were various \"enemies\" that you had to contend with - thieves and wild animals, and of course, pissed off native Americans. Your gun kept you safe. Nowadays, people still believe that having a gun in their home keeps them safe - despite statistics to the contrary. Anecdotal evidence will always reign supreme over statistical data for these people. One 70-year-old man who fends off a home invasion will always carry more weight than statistics showing that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of (successful) [suicide](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) by 8x for men and 35x for women.\n\nFurther, I think our politicians and talking heads (and those everywhere, honestly) are able to tap into a profound fear that Americans have about all kinds of things - home invasions, brown people coming to take jobs, etc. Fear is the underlying motivator for humans, so tapping into that produces incredible results. And there are sects that use government interference like at Waco and Ruby Ridge to stoke fear of government overreach - and how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from that (although, as I've noted in the past, the US government has an arsenal that no quantity AR-15's is going to rival).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f4wr",
                    "author": "THSea_Aye111",
                    "body": "Gin buy back programs do work in the US, even in conservative areas: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/08/30/gun-buybacks-are-popular-but-are-they-effective",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2olr4",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "The link you cited seems to say the opposite? That a few hundred generally older, and less functional guns are turned in, doesn't seem to me to scream great success in a county with hundreds of millions?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf2f4wr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2hjw7",
                    "author": "src88",
                    "body": "Sorry but there are over 2 million defensive gun incidents a year where good people save themselves. Less guns would have resulted in more death. Considering most of our gun stats come from gang violence (mainly in the biggest cities) and suicide. The argument has been and always will be weak. \n\nAlso we ain't Australia with covid internment camps because we are armed and the government knows it's not in complete control. Hence, why they want to disarm the public using the bodies of children. Absolute power corrupts. Our founding fathers knew it.\n\nJust took a look at the top comments and all their sources are left wing sites. Hmmm",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2rcy0",
                    "author": "Zncon",
                    "body": ">Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nWith more study, this is proving to be less true then we thought for a long time. Mass shootings outside of gang violence tend to be a complicated form of suicide.\n\nWe know that suicides can be somewhat contagious and driven by the news media, which can also connect the increase shootings we see as a result of that coverage.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2wujm",
                    "author": "RevolutionaryBug8528",
                    "body": "It's not even a problem with the proper American mindset. Any shortfall in future consumer laborers resulting from mass shootings (improbable that it would amount to anything significant) can be made up for with the proper immigration and \"healthcare\" policies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2yox7",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "A solution does exist, but I think it's too extreme / complex to be  actually adopted. At its core gun reform and fixing gun violence requires a dramatic shift in culture away from pro-gun behaviour. This includes forking over rights to own a gun easily, because as long as there are so many guns and so many people own them, we cannot prevent them from being resold, shared, or otherwise being given to people who are mentally ill or likely to be violent and enact shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2z565",
                    "author": "IndyPoker979",
                    "body": "I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nIn all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\n\nTo put it simply, no one is suddenly a race car driver just because they play Forza. Counter-Strike players do not automatically become good at paintball. This is not a good example of a healthy outlet for an individual at risk",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk1xi8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nThe point I made in the post details is that I don't think it would solve the mass shooter problem if the education system provided FPS games to fulfil the desire to shoot. I know so many people who play FPS games, and none of them are itching to fire into an innocent crowd. \n\n>In all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\r  \n\r\n\nI do support universal healthcare and improved mental healthcare.",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf2z565"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf31rvn",
                    "author": "Obsidian743",
                    "body": "I see no reason that if we pass laws that make guns et. al. difficult if not impossible to buy/own/use, then over time, the overall gun/ammo/accessory/culture supply will disappear. The only obstacle is passing those laws. I always hear arguments against the \"practicality\" of getting people to turn in or sell their guns. We don't need to do that. We simply strangle the supply and let time do the rest of the work.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3hmn9",
                    "author": "Navlgazer",
                    "body": "Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\nJust look at chicago .\n\nThe people who want to ban guns and think that 25-40 million \u201cassault weapons \u201c can be confiscated and stolen from their owners , are also the exact same  people who say that 15 million illegal immigrants is too many to round up and deport . \n\nSee the hypocrisy here ?\n\nAnd no one except liberals trust the govt .\nPeople with a brain know the govt is corrupt and bought and laid for by lobbyists and special interest groups and does as they are told by their donors.\n\nThe same govt that says they will protect you if you give up your right and means to protect yourself , are the same govt that can\u2019t secure a border . Yet tells you everyday that the border  is secure even though two million illegals waltz across every month , and bring tons of fentanyl with them . The same fentanyl that kills ten times more people than are murdered  with guns .\n\nAnd liberals don\u2019t care about people being killed .\nIf those school kids had been aborted babies instead , the liberals would have been praising the mothers for killing them before they were born . \nLiberals won\u2019t ever talk about how many people are killed in Chicago every weekend.\nBecause Chicago is and has been run by democrats for decades .\n\nMurder is against the law , every school is a \u201c gun free zone \u201c\n \nThe ONLY thing that stops a nut job crazy person with a gun , is a good guy with a gun.\n\nThe faster the good guy shows up with a gun , the less innocent people killed .",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zyxw",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\n>Just look at chicago .\n\nChicago is an embarrassment to left wingers everywhere, even in Australia.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf3hmn9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ijy9",
                    "author": "Sinfultitan_001",
                    "body": "We don't have a gun violence problem we have a **MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS** that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zks9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">We don't have a gun violence problem we have a MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.\n\nSo does Australia and a lot of other countries. Yet our gun violence rate is lower. Would you link that to our gun control laws or our universal healthcare?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf3ijy9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3xhxv",
                    "author": "buttholefluid",
                    "body": "I know what won\u2019t, more laws.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3z3v1",
                    "author": "CITYCATZCOUSIN",
                    "body": "Your first paragraph...!",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf43tu4",
                    "author": "themetahumancrusader",
                    "body": "As an Australian, I disagree with you on Australia having a similar right vs left culture war. Our \u201cculture war\u201d is very subdued in comparison to the US.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf44bub",
                    "author": "burnblue",
                    "body": "Pass the gun restrictions, let who needs to panic buy guns go ahead and panic buy before the law kicks in, then let people get over it and needing licenses or checks to get firearms will just be the normal law of the land the same way other things are.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf45s9x",
                    "author": "PrincessTrunks125",
                    "body": "1) make gun purchases more readily traceable \n\n\n2) the original purchaser of the gun is responsible for all crimes committed with it \n\nThat would be a huge start.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf46qms",
                    "author": "AdamicAtom",
                    "body": "America doesn't have a gun violence problem, or a racism problem or any other problem more important than this:  America has a culture problem.  And everyone everywhere knows it is at the core of all of this but will never admit that between classes and cultures in America, there will never be consensus or compromise.\n\nAnd the media and all the politicians know it and do everything they can to keep it this way.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf48p8f",
                    "author": "Mindless-Umpire7420",
                    "body": "America has criminal gangs and cartel from the south, Australia is a massive island continent. The reason Australia\u2019s gun control works is because it\u2019s an island nation, it\u2019s harder to smuggle guns through an ocean than the Mexican border",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4d3k9",
                    "author": "Green_and_black",
                    "body": "Gun violence is actually not that big a problem (it\u2019s Americans shooting Americans). The bigger problem is BOMB violence. This is worse because the seppos are exporting the violence.\nThe best way to prevent bomb violence is Balkanisation of the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf56ckw",
                    "author": "canwepleasejustnot",
                    "body": "The reality is that we have a much larger problem in this country, an existential one, that is resulting in everyone becoming more and more fractured and isolated, and violent. Taking legally obtained guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't really fix that problem and I genuinely believe that a large faction of Americans believe this deep down. Those calling for full bans tend to think that people are generally good and law abiding but it's just not true. If it comes down to it I'd rather be able to defend myself.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5atv1",
                    "author": "pilzn3r",
                    "body": "We have a mental health crisis in America.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeuuzf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I won't deny that but it's daft to think that you're the only country with a mental health crisis. Would you support universal health care to help tackle this crisis?",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5atv1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5g21c",
                    "author": "Psycheau",
                    "body": "If we take a more pragmatic military look at the USA they have Russia on one side. If Putin went completely mental and decided to invade the US and the military was spread to far across the globe for a quick response a land invasion on US soil would be a very problematic assault. When the people are armed a land assault could be easily thwarted by local militia holding their ground. Especially when lots of the public have automatic assault rifles it would be a simple matter to put together a small militia in each city to hold ground while the military get the logistics sorted. \n\nWhen people look at the gun situation in the USA they never seem to acknowledge the fact that they are in a very unique geological situation having a border with a potential enemy. There are other threats as well as Russia but it is the most obvious potential threat. Of course many people will know that Russia doesn't have the resources to attack the USA, but that does not mean they will never try, even in desperation.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeu5jb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If Russia (or any other hostile nation) were to obliterate the American military and put boots on the ground in the USA, you can bet that nukes will launch. That's probably a greater deterrent than having an armed populace.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5g21c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6qvfu",
                    "author": "StarMNF",
                    "body": "I've given this some thought, and I think I have a gun control measure that would eliminate most mass shootings in the U.S. without effecting most gun owners.\n\nThe idea is simple. To buy a gun, you need to get affidavits from 5 people who have known you well for at least a decade, who are willing to vouch that you can be trusted with the gun -- that you're of good character, mentally stable, and not likely to use the gun in an unlawful manner.\n\nYou can make the process pretty painless. You show up at Walmart with your 5 friends, you walk out with your gun. Heck, make gun buying a social activity.\n\nRednecks will still get their guns. People who are planning to stockpile ammunitions for the next Waco shootout with the feds will still be able to get their guns. The mafia will still get their guns.\n\nSo it won't completely stop gun violence in the country. However, it will be a major road block for the typical \"lone wolf shooter\" who does these mass shootings.\n\nPeople who know these shooters know they're mentally unstable and shouldn't have guns. In the case of the Covenant shooter, their parents knew they shouldn't own a gun. Even if they went to other friends who maybe don't know them so well, they would get a lot of questions about suddenly wanting to buy up enough guns for a small army.\n\nWhile most of these shooters have mental illnesses, and mental healthcare needs to be significantly improved, the reality is that a significant number of people with serious mental illnesses are never even diagnosed. Banning anyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun with result in even fewer people seeking treatment or being diagnosed, because most mental illnesses are diagnosed through voluntary therapy. \n\nThere are also cases where someone officially diagnosed with a mental illness has a justifiable need for a gun. For instance, a woman suffering PTSD from domestic violence might need a gun to protect themselves from their ex-partner who wants to kill them.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf9ngjr",
                    "author": "LigPortman69",
                    "body": "You\u2019re correct. A full 60% are in strong favor of the Second Amendment. It\u2019s not going anywhere. I doubt the military would enforce any \u201cdecree\u201d from above.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfarqj9",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable \n\nThe spike wouldn't prevent them from being able to surrender them later on; the grace period would no doubt account for this phenomenon.\n\n>Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it\n\nThis doesn't have much to do with our actual polices on gun control. It just shows our politicians aren't content with their citizens bloodshed at the hands of a few lunatics. It was still bigly unpopular for howard at the time, and political heads rolled over doing it.\n\n>Mental healthcare might help\n\nHeard this one quite a bit. Mental health issues aren't unique to the US, their access to guns is.\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings\n\nA violation of their first amendment\n\n>Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n\nA few things stops ours from being the all-in celebrity contest that america holds. We don't vote for our candidates directly, only their parties. And we have compulsory voting, which has the majority vote when they don't care about who they cast for. The more extreme you act(as is common in america) the less you score these voters.\n\n>Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot\n\nThis would not nearly be as effective as just copy pasting our gun control laws. License and lockup storage. Caliber restrictions. Self defense is not a legit reason to obtain and hold your license etc.\n\nAlso, Wendover did a pretty [decent look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM) at the relative effectiveness of our laws since their passing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfbljg6",
                    "author": "jajabingo2",
                    "body": "Australia does not have a raging left vs right battle anything like the USA \ud83d\ude02 \n\nAnd our proportional voting and donations oversight gives us a way different type of government here",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfefxs3",
                    "author": "TheDanimator",
                    "body": "We need to put more guns into the hands of good people so we can stop shootings.\nI dont believe this would solve everything, I do think it would help the problem though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfgy5nr",
                    "author": "D_Balgarus",
                    "body": "First off, gun violence statistics are inflated since they include suicides. \n\nSecond, most actual violence is gang violence in the big cities.\n\nIf we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk6z8d",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.\n\nHow isn't the USA already tough on crime if it has the world's highest incarnation rate?",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jfgy5nr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12cij50",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 772,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf2pgs0",
                "author": "Maxfunky",
                "body": "You seem to be using \"gun violence\" as a synonym for our problem with mass shootings.  Depending on the metric you use when defining mass shootings are about 1% of our gun violence at the high end and less than a tenth of a percentage at the low end.\n\nThese headline making events are really just a drop in the bucket. Most of our gun violence in this country is gang or drug related, one-on-one type stuff or suicides.  \n\n> Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n\nThe gun panic buying doesn't actually correlate to attempts at gun control.  It correlates to people's irrational fears of gun control (such as when Obama was elected).\n\n\n> Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nHere's where you're 100% wrong. This right here is as close to a silver bullet solution as there is. It just hasn't been tried so your claim that there's a problem here is just wrong. The fact of the matter is there's an overwhelming amount of evidence of an effect called media contagion when it comes to suicide. Mass shootings are recognized form of suicide being over 98% fatal to the shooters. We have many examples of instances we're voluntary media guidelines on how suicides were reported drastically impacted the number of suicides.\n\nMass shooters are 100% in it for the media coverage. If you take away the media coverage, they have no incentive/motive anymore.  It's really that simple.  On the flip side, if we don't take care of this media contagion issue, eventually it will infect other countries as well. You're going to start to see more and more mass shootings on a global scale as long as it continues to be something that gets prominent media coverage.\n\nThe evidence says this will work. If done right, it will probably work way better than gun control. I'm not anti-gun control, but I'm fully pragmatic and this is the number one intervention that will have the biggest impact. Gun control will also reduce the problem but not by as much.\n\nThe problem is, the solution is seen as political. The left doesn't like it because they think that not covering mass shootings makes it harder to promote gun control. In other words they see supporting this effective solution as an attack on the idea of gun control even though they are fully compatible and could work together. Consequently, we basically have an easy solution that nobody is talking about because it's politically infeasible.\n\nBut again, this is just mass shootings it's not all gun violence. I think we could go a long way towards reducing other forms of gun violence by taking the Australian approach..",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "12cij50"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfexq8i",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Here's where you're 100% wrong. This right here is as close to a silver bullet solution as there is. It just hasn't been tried so your claim that there's a problem here is just wrong. The fact of the matter is there's an overwhelming amount of evidence of an effect called media contagion when it comes to suicide. Mass shootings are recognized form of suicide being over 98% fatal to the shooters. We have many examples of instances we're voluntary media guidelines on how suicides were reported drastically impacted the number of suicides.\r  \n\r  \n>  \n>Mass shooters are 100% in it for the media coverage. If you take away the media coverage, they have no incentive/motive anymore.  It's really that simple.  On the flip side, if we don't take care of this media contagion issue, eventually it will infect other countries as well. You're going to start to see more and more mass shootings on a global scale as long as it continues to be something that gets prominent media coverage.  \n>  \n>The evidence says this will work. If done right, it will probably work way better than gun control. I'm not anti-gun control, but I'm fully pragmatic and this is the number one intervention that will have the biggest impact. Gun control will also reduce the problem but not by as much.  \n>  \n>The problem is, the solution is seen as political. The left doesn't like it because they think that not covering mass shootings makes it harder to promote gun control. In other words they see supporting this effective solution as an attack on the idea of gun control even though they are fully compatible and could work together. Consequently, we basically have an easy solution that nobody is talking about because it's politically infeasible.  \n>  \n>But again, this is just mass shootings it's not all gun violence. I think we could go a long way towards reducing other forms of gun violence by taking the Australian approach..\n\n!delta\n\nWe might not be able to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry, but we can at least deprive them of attention from mass shootings. And yes, I agree that both sides of politics can deliberately stand in the way of progress just to create a situation that is more conducive to their political agenda.",
                "date": "2023-04-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jf2pgs0"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfexs1q",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Maxfunky ([34\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Maxfunky)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jfexq8i"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1jzav",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kyf4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?\n\nI am saying the latter. Say Joe Biden manages to pull off some masterful political puppeteering to enact gun control legislations similar to what John Howard did in 1996. It doesn't matter if it gets passed because past trends have shown us that the USA will experience panic buying of guns whenever there is a suspicion that gun control will be enacted.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1jzav"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kk0w",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run. \n\nThere is no reason to consider that spike to mean it's impossible, it barley matters in the larger scheme of things.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 39,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lcz8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run.\n\nFirstly, while this did happen in Australia, will this phenomenon necessarily happen too in the USA? \n\nSecondly, how many lives will it cost? Imagine the cops trying to seize guns from an angry gun owner - it would either result in a few cops getting killed, the gun owners getting killed, or both.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kk0w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kow3",
                    "author": "Squirt_memes",
                    "body": ">\tAny attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n\nI\u2019d say the gun control fails because it\u2019s very difficult to make a gun control bill that will pass all three branches of our government. Even just getting it past the representatives is quite difficult and the courts are unreceptive to violations of the second amendment. \n\n>\tMental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention,\n\nThat really depends what you mean by \u201cmass shooting\u201d. In your wiki list, I think there\u2019s 4 mass shooting so far this year that were unrelated to gang violence. And a couple dozen gang shooting that make it seem like mass shootings randomly happen all the time. \n\nGun violence is way bigger in America than most comparable countries, but it\u2019s really easy to let emotions cloud your brain. The vast majority of \u201cmass shootings\u201d pose no threat to normal people who don\u2019t live in a gang\u2019s turf. \n\n>\tSuppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI\u2019d say the media\u2019s obsession with coverage also makes it hard to know the true scale of the problem. It\u2019s crazy how many people I\u2019ll talk to who are TERRIFIED to send their kids to school. So I\u2019ll ask them \u201cdo you have any idea what the statistical chances are of a shooting involving your kid?\u201d Then they\u2019ll get pissed off and accuse me of hating children or something. \n\nThis whole issue is fed by a lack of objective information and a reliance on emotional arguments. \n\n>\tGiving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences\n\nYou need to go back a few decades if you want to claim violent video games increase violent activity without being made fun of. \n\n>\tThe USA\u2019s gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it\u2019s getting worse, if Wikipedia\u2019s list of mass shootings is to be believed.\n\nIt is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims. \n\nSo what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 65,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lly5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims.  \n>  \n>So what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.\r  \n\r\n\nOK, but either way, this just goes to prove my point that I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem. While I didn't put it in the post details, gun control legislation can't fix the gang crime problem either.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kow3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1l307",
                    "author": "NelsonMeme",
                    "body": "> Firstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it).\n\nThis doesn\u2019t make sense.\n\nFirst, it isn\u2019t true. The U.S. developed the rudiments of its gun culture living in frontiers, where guns were commonly used as weapons in armed combat or to secure game. This culture further developed when we forcefully secured our independence. \n\nAustralia is independent, did not have to become so forcefully, and did not develop our same culture after independence.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2fp1v",
                    "author": "NegroniHater",
                    "body": "The Wild West is a myth. And no, gun culture started in America when the second right guaranteed to every American is keeping and bearing arms. Gun control was created to keep former slaves from having those rights, which for almost 100 years had never been touched by the government. \n\nFucking Ben Franklin said you shouldn\u2019t go for a walk without a gun, Thomas Jefferson said guns stop homicides, George Washington said every American [probably only meant men] should be armed and trained. It\u2019s always been part of American culture, and sure as fuck didn\u2019t start on an Italian movie set with Clint Eastwood, because you apparently think that\u2019s an accurate depiction of history.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf1l307"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1of4b",
                    "author": "ProLifePanda",
                    "body": ">As for solutions to the problem?\n\nSo just to start, there is no \"100% solution\" to gun violence, just like there's no \"100% solution\" to car crashes, knife stabbings, bar fights, etc. As long as something is allowed (like owning cars, guns, being able to drink, etc.) there will be some negative consequences. So there are no gun control laws or regulations that will reduce gun violence/deaths to 0 (or even close to it).\n\nBut a big improvement would be the implementation of pervasive \"red flag\" laws. Many of the school shootings you see are done by people who show red flags beforehand. The Oxford shooter was literally in the principal's office for being a suspected school shooter the day he did the shooting. The recent Tennessee shooter messaged her friends beforehand with concerning messages before the shooting. There are a lot of other examples, but that's the idea that if we can \"take the guns first, due process later\", we can stop some of the shootings by obviously troubled individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1sdva",
                    "author": "Purely_Theoretical",
                    "body": "You can't possibly red flag the Nashville shooter that sent messages just minutes beforehand. \n\nThe real problem with red flag laws is they brush aside due process.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1of4b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1r31m",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "\"Gun violence problem\" seems like newspeak - it's the sort of thing that politicians say when they want an emotional reaction but don't really want to say anything.   Can you describe what you mean by \"gun violence problem\" in more concrete terms?\nIs there some way to check whether the \"gun violence problem\" has been solved that isn't just \"I know it when I see it\"?  Suppose, for example, that there were no more shootings in school and no more breathless media coverage but homicide rates in inner cities continued to rise, would that be an improvement in the \"gun violence problem\" or not?\n\nDo you think that all of the gun control laws that were passed in the US over the last 40 years were credible attempts to address gun violence, or is it possible that at least some of them were political pandering instead?\n\n> ... The USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if Wikipedia's list of mass shootings is to be believed. ...\n\nAt the same time, the trend is toward the same or less gun ownership.  ( https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html ).   Do you think that gun availability has substantively changed in the US over the last 30 years?  Do you think that changes in \"mental health issues\" (more newspeak) and increased media coverage of gun violence explain all of the \"getting worse\" or not?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1s9cp",
                    "author": "pudding7",
                    "body": "I would assume that \"Gun violence problem\" means people being intentionally shot with a gun.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jf1r31m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1vtje",
                    "author": "oddball667",
                    "body": "USA is in a weird not so cold civil war, this will last generations and it will prevent any major issue from being resolved",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1xl7g",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "The first step to solving the gun problem is to make lobbying illegal.  Corporations also shouldn\u2019t be able to donate to campaigns.\n\nOnce you take NRA money out of the equation, it becomes much easier to tackle.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1yc6v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Lobbying is huge in Australia. If we can have gun control despite that, so can the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf1xl7g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zj9y",
                    "author": "Thintegrator",
                    "body": "This is correct. We Americans have finally accepted that gun violence is an integral part of the American experience and that children dying from gunshot wounds in our schools is a small price to pay for the right to own weapons designed to kill. It is our core freedom. Anyone who thinks otherwise just stay the fuck out of our country. We got this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zo34",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Are you being sarcastic or sincere?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jf1zj9y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zwpg",
                    "author": "trash332",
                    "body": "We like our guns.  I would like to see more stringent background checks and maybe 30 day wait periods,  but only because every mass shooter has purchased their guns legally. Really, some people have to be more honest about their crazy ass family members.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf21ioj",
                    "author": "Sandy_hook_lemy",
                    "body": "Nonsense. Why is it always \"it can't work in the US\"? Has it been tried? Literally worked for every country so why not the US?\n\nThis is the same type of shit I see for why America cant have railway systems like Europeans. Try it first let's see. It cant be worse than it is now",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf228mw",
                    "author": "blade740",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with this take - the US and Australia are VERY different, namely the fact that the US has SIGNIFICANTLY higher levels of firearm proliferation than Australia ever did.  While Australia's ban/buybacks were able to make firearms relatively scarce, the amount of guns that would need to be taken off the street in the US to get us to roughly the same level is something like 90%.  It's just not feasible.  \n\nThat said, there is one point from your post in particular I want to debate:\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI am not arguing for forcibly SUPPRESSING media coverage, but I do think that the media circus that surrounds these events is a HUGE factor in driving mass shootings due to the media contagion effect.  I think that some best practice guidelines for major media organizations to (hopefully) voluntarily follow could help reduce the level at which children are introduced and accustomed to the idea of \"mass shootings\" in the first place, similar to the way the press (voluntarily) covers suicides to minimize media contagion.  \n\nTo address your point, I don't believe that the kind of media coverage we have today is necessary (or even helpful) in measuring the \"full scale\" of the problem.  If anything the scale of the problem is blown vastly out of proportion by the outsized attention media gives to these events.  The scale of the problem should be measured by scientific studies and good data collection, not by public outrage created by clickbait-driven capitalist news organizations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf22xmj",
                    "author": "FearLeadsToAnger",
                    "body": "> Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nThis is a fundamental problem with the individualistic nature of 'the american dream' the lone ranger archetype, and the reinforcement of the view that everyone else is stupid and only I know what i'm doing.\n\nOur main new sources are hot on the themes of 'everyone else' being stupid, sneaky and selfish, so it's only fair for you to do it too - 'I gadda git ma own'.\n\nLike you say, mental healthcare isn't the solution, the whole of society needs to be reframed through a more compassionate lens before anything improves.\n\n> After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable\n\nMy point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun, which frankly is what a weapon of potential mass murder deserves anyway. Sure, people would still stash guns, but if all hell rains down you any time you get it out, you're never going to get it out and it becomes irrelevant anyway.\n\nThe whole shtick about protecting yourself from the government if it goes rogue is archaic, if the government turns on the people we're fucked either way, what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? Our strength is in our numbers, not our arms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2ov0s",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "> My point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun\n\n....Like we did with drugs and alcohol?\n\n> what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? \n\nAsymmetric warfare can be a bitch. a fun poem about it: https://twitter.com/Huff4Congress/status/1623747713316581376",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jf22xmj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf233c7",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "[Stronger gun policies are associated with lower rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989)\n\n[96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases](http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)\n\n[There are things experts agree will work that the public also supports](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html)\n\n> [After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0\u00b739 [95% CI 0\u00b723\u20130\u00b767]; p=0\u00b7001), ammunition background checks (0\u00b718 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b736]; p<0\u00b70001), and identification requirement for firearms (0\u00b716 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b729]; p<0\u00b70001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10\u00b735 to 4\u00b746 deaths per 100\u2008000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1\u00b799 per 100\u2008000, and firearm identification to 1\u00b781 per 100\u2008000.](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2901026-0/abstract)\n\nWe even know what we need to do to get it:\n\n[46% of gun owners in the NRA have contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[15% of gun owners not in the NRA have ever contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[The NRA is powerful, but not because of its money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf23ea6",
                    "author": "HomoSupremacy",
                    "body": ">As an Australian\n\nDon't care",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf252f2",
                    "author": "Thebrotherleftbehind",
                    "body": "As an American, and former Republican, I want to disclose, I want gun control. That being said, democrats are just as much to blame for the lack of gun control as republicans.\n\nOutside of domestic violence involving guns, I think the biggest problem we have with guns are the \u201cmass\u201d shootings. The problem is, they group all shootings in together. Suicide is also considered as homicide in gun stats. That is misleading and makes you seem untrustworthy. If two rival gangs get in a shootout, let\u2019s stop calling that a mass shooting. If someone writes a manifesto and shoots up a school, that to me is a mass shooting.\n\nYou don\u2019t solve gun violence with gangs by banning them, you tackle the socioeconomic issues that create the gangs in the first place.\n\nThe gun control conversation needs to be had with a MULTI pronged approach with clear definitions of what we are attributing to the violence and how to stop each thing. Yeah republicans offer thoughts and prayers instead of gun control legislation (sometimes going the opposite way in fact, Florida anyone?), and democrats use misleading and false information instead of legislation. We really need more parties in the USA.\n\nI see a lot of the same problems in both parties. Most of the elected officials on both sides say what their constituents want them to say, but what they actually do is really all about themselves and stayed in power. Yes dnc, you have the same problem as the gop, ie aoc. Aoc is all about aoc and will always be about aoc. But she\u2019s very social media savvy and knows what to say to her constituents. Look at how she speaks depending on the color of the skin of her audience. I\u2019ll admit, the dnc is slightly better, like with the Texas cold snap etc, but call me jaded, but to me I think they just have better marketing than the gop. I admit between the two though, I hate the gop much much more",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4lir3",
                    "author": "johnhtman",
                    "body": "Mass shootings are one of the least serious problems when it comes to guns or homicides. Going by the FBI numbers between 2000-2019 they averaged 53.1 people killed a year, with 2017 being the deadliest year with 138 people killed, 60 in the Vegas Shooting alone. That same year a total of 17,294 people were murdered, which means mass shootings during the worst year on record were responsible for 0.8% of total murders.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jf252f2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2550y",
                    "author": "Ok-Independent-5782",
                    "body": "American's will never give up their firearms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf27z5d",
                    "author": "yelkca",
                    "body": "For those of us who live here, giving up isn't really an option. But thanks for your input",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ywsa",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Look, I'm getting a lot of commenters whose points boil down to \"*[ackshually, it's all a gang problem](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf1kow3?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\" or \"*[we need guns to defend ourselves](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf2fhr9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\", or \"*[look at Chicago's problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf3hmn9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\". How can I rebut them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf27z5d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf29m7m",
                    "author": "El_Burrito_Grande",
                    "body": "There's a solution to mass shootings, at least. It's in your post. The people who do it get attention. The media facilitates that. There were a lot of guns before mass shootings became such a big trend. THE reason there are so many school shootings/mass shootings is the rise of the sensationalistic 24 hour news cycle/social media. It's a copycat thing/trend. If the media squelched it and didn't talk about the shooters it would die down. It's THE solution. I don't see that happening though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2e3af",
                    "author": "Character_Ad_7058",
                    "body": "The main reason there cannot be *ANY* effective control on guns in the US is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and the broad court precedents in interpreting it.) In the US, for example, if we tried such a buyback program we would react as you indicated, in terms of selling record amounts of new guns and ammunition. But, an additional reaction (that makes such a program a non-starter) is that funding for it would never be approved. Even if, my some miracle, it did, it would be extremely vulnerable to a court challenge and would eventually be denied.\n\nFew other nations have such a supreme, blanket right to guns as we have in the US. And, we\u2019re essentially stuck with it because the only option would be to further amend the constitution, which is a non-starter as it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of State Legislatures.) Such a majority in either State or Federal legislatures just isn\u2019t conceivable in the foreseeable future.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2euoo",
                    "author": "NuJoisi",
                    "body": "There's no way for you to get an actual reply or information from Reddit, the real information is banned.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f2pz",
                    "author": "ShutYourDumbUglyFace",
                    "body": "I don't have any idea what the solution is to our problem (I mean, I think it's making it harder to buy a gun - but I have no idea how we get there), but I will say that I don't think it stems from the revolution. I think it's more related to the Wild West and the glorification of the perceived violence and lawlessness - and fierce independence - that pervaded that era. The irony is that most towns at that time, in the west, [were gun-free](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/) and you had to leave your firearm with the sheriff. \n\nThis narrative ties in with the (false) narrative that guns increase safety. In the Wild West, there were various \"enemies\" that you had to contend with - thieves and wild animals, and of course, pissed off native Americans. Your gun kept you safe. Nowadays, people still believe that having a gun in their home keeps them safe - despite statistics to the contrary. Anecdotal evidence will always reign supreme over statistical data for these people. One 70-year-old man who fends off a home invasion will always carry more weight than statistics showing that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of (successful) [suicide](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) by 8x for men and 35x for women.\n\nFurther, I think our politicians and talking heads (and those everywhere, honestly) are able to tap into a profound fear that Americans have about all kinds of things - home invasions, brown people coming to take jobs, etc. Fear is the underlying motivator for humans, so tapping into that produces incredible results. And there are sects that use government interference like at Waco and Ruby Ridge to stoke fear of government overreach - and how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from that (although, as I've noted in the past, the US government has an arsenal that no quantity AR-15's is going to rival).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f4wr",
                    "author": "THSea_Aye111",
                    "body": "Gin buy back programs do work in the US, even in conservative areas: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/08/30/gun-buybacks-are-popular-but-are-they-effective",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2olr4",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "The link you cited seems to say the opposite? That a few hundred generally older, and less functional guns are turned in, doesn't seem to me to scream great success in a county with hundreds of millions?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf2f4wr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2hjw7",
                    "author": "src88",
                    "body": "Sorry but there are over 2 million defensive gun incidents a year where good people save themselves. Less guns would have resulted in more death. Considering most of our gun stats come from gang violence (mainly in the biggest cities) and suicide. The argument has been and always will be weak. \n\nAlso we ain't Australia with covid internment camps because we are armed and the government knows it's not in complete control. Hence, why they want to disarm the public using the bodies of children. Absolute power corrupts. Our founding fathers knew it.\n\nJust took a look at the top comments and all their sources are left wing sites. Hmmm",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2rcy0",
                    "author": "Zncon",
                    "body": ">Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nWith more study, this is proving to be less true then we thought for a long time. Mass shootings outside of gang violence tend to be a complicated form of suicide.\n\nWe know that suicides can be somewhat contagious and driven by the news media, which can also connect the increase shootings we see as a result of that coverage.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2wujm",
                    "author": "RevolutionaryBug8528",
                    "body": "It's not even a problem with the proper American mindset. Any shortfall in future consumer laborers resulting from mass shootings (improbable that it would amount to anything significant) can be made up for with the proper immigration and \"healthcare\" policies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2yox7",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "A solution does exist, but I think it's too extreme / complex to be  actually adopted. At its core gun reform and fixing gun violence requires a dramatic shift in culture away from pro-gun behaviour. This includes forking over rights to own a gun easily, because as long as there are so many guns and so many people own them, we cannot prevent them from being resold, shared, or otherwise being given to people who are mentally ill or likely to be violent and enact shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2z565",
                    "author": "IndyPoker979",
                    "body": "I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nIn all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\n\nTo put it simply, no one is suddenly a race car driver just because they play Forza. Counter-Strike players do not automatically become good at paintball. This is not a good example of a healthy outlet for an individual at risk",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk1xi8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nThe point I made in the post details is that I don't think it would solve the mass shooter problem if the education system provided FPS games to fulfil the desire to shoot. I know so many people who play FPS games, and none of them are itching to fire into an innocent crowd. \n\n>In all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\r  \n\r\n\nI do support universal healthcare and improved mental healthcare.",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf2z565"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf31rvn",
                    "author": "Obsidian743",
                    "body": "I see no reason that if we pass laws that make guns et. al. difficult if not impossible to buy/own/use, then over time, the overall gun/ammo/accessory/culture supply will disappear. The only obstacle is passing those laws. I always hear arguments against the \"practicality\" of getting people to turn in or sell their guns. We don't need to do that. We simply strangle the supply and let time do the rest of the work.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3hmn9",
                    "author": "Navlgazer",
                    "body": "Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\nJust look at chicago .\n\nThe people who want to ban guns and think that 25-40 million \u201cassault weapons \u201c can be confiscated and stolen from their owners , are also the exact same  people who say that 15 million illegal immigrants is too many to round up and deport . \n\nSee the hypocrisy here ?\n\nAnd no one except liberals trust the govt .\nPeople with a brain know the govt is corrupt and bought and laid for by lobbyists and special interest groups and does as they are told by their donors.\n\nThe same govt that says they will protect you if you give up your right and means to protect yourself , are the same govt that can\u2019t secure a border . Yet tells you everyday that the border  is secure even though two million illegals waltz across every month , and bring tons of fentanyl with them . The same fentanyl that kills ten times more people than are murdered  with guns .\n\nAnd liberals don\u2019t care about people being killed .\nIf those school kids had been aborted babies instead , the liberals would have been praising the mothers for killing them before they were born . \nLiberals won\u2019t ever talk about how many people are killed in Chicago every weekend.\nBecause Chicago is and has been run by democrats for decades .\n\nMurder is against the law , every school is a \u201c gun free zone \u201c\n \nThe ONLY thing that stops a nut job crazy person with a gun , is a good guy with a gun.\n\nThe faster the good guy shows up with a gun , the less innocent people killed .",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zyxw",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\n>Just look at chicago .\n\nChicago is an embarrassment to left wingers everywhere, even in Australia.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf3hmn9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ijy9",
                    "author": "Sinfultitan_001",
                    "body": "We don't have a gun violence problem we have a **MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS** that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zks9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">We don't have a gun violence problem we have a MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.\n\nSo does Australia and a lot of other countries. Yet our gun violence rate is lower. Would you link that to our gun control laws or our universal healthcare?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf3ijy9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3xhxv",
                    "author": "buttholefluid",
                    "body": "I know what won\u2019t, more laws.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3z3v1",
                    "author": "CITYCATZCOUSIN",
                    "body": "Your first paragraph...!",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf43tu4",
                    "author": "themetahumancrusader",
                    "body": "As an Australian, I disagree with you on Australia having a similar right vs left culture war. Our \u201cculture war\u201d is very subdued in comparison to the US.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf44bub",
                    "author": "burnblue",
                    "body": "Pass the gun restrictions, let who needs to panic buy guns go ahead and panic buy before the law kicks in, then let people get over it and needing licenses or checks to get firearms will just be the normal law of the land the same way other things are.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf45s9x",
                    "author": "PrincessTrunks125",
                    "body": "1) make gun purchases more readily traceable \n\n\n2) the original purchaser of the gun is responsible for all crimes committed with it \n\nThat would be a huge start.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf46qms",
                    "author": "AdamicAtom",
                    "body": "America doesn't have a gun violence problem, or a racism problem or any other problem more important than this:  America has a culture problem.  And everyone everywhere knows it is at the core of all of this but will never admit that between classes and cultures in America, there will never be consensus or compromise.\n\nAnd the media and all the politicians know it and do everything they can to keep it this way.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf48p8f",
                    "author": "Mindless-Umpire7420",
                    "body": "America has criminal gangs and cartel from the south, Australia is a massive island continent. The reason Australia\u2019s gun control works is because it\u2019s an island nation, it\u2019s harder to smuggle guns through an ocean than the Mexican border",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4d3k9",
                    "author": "Green_and_black",
                    "body": "Gun violence is actually not that big a problem (it\u2019s Americans shooting Americans). The bigger problem is BOMB violence. This is worse because the seppos are exporting the violence.\nThe best way to prevent bomb violence is Balkanisation of the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf56ckw",
                    "author": "canwepleasejustnot",
                    "body": "The reality is that we have a much larger problem in this country, an existential one, that is resulting in everyone becoming more and more fractured and isolated, and violent. Taking legally obtained guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't really fix that problem and I genuinely believe that a large faction of Americans believe this deep down. Those calling for full bans tend to think that people are generally good and law abiding but it's just not true. If it comes down to it I'd rather be able to defend myself.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5atv1",
                    "author": "pilzn3r",
                    "body": "We have a mental health crisis in America.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeuuzf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I won't deny that but it's daft to think that you're the only country with a mental health crisis. Would you support universal health care to help tackle this crisis?",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5atv1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5g21c",
                    "author": "Psycheau",
                    "body": "If we take a more pragmatic military look at the USA they have Russia on one side. If Putin went completely mental and decided to invade the US and the military was spread to far across the globe for a quick response a land invasion on US soil would be a very problematic assault. When the people are armed a land assault could be easily thwarted by local militia holding their ground. Especially when lots of the public have automatic assault rifles it would be a simple matter to put together a small militia in each city to hold ground while the military get the logistics sorted. \n\nWhen people look at the gun situation in the USA they never seem to acknowledge the fact that they are in a very unique geological situation having a border with a potential enemy. There are other threats as well as Russia but it is the most obvious potential threat. Of course many people will know that Russia doesn't have the resources to attack the USA, but that does not mean they will never try, even in desperation.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeu5jb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If Russia (or any other hostile nation) were to obliterate the American military and put boots on the ground in the USA, you can bet that nukes will launch. That's probably a greater deterrent than having an armed populace.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5g21c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6qvfu",
                    "author": "StarMNF",
                    "body": "I've given this some thought, and I think I have a gun control measure that would eliminate most mass shootings in the U.S. without effecting most gun owners.\n\nThe idea is simple. To buy a gun, you need to get affidavits from 5 people who have known you well for at least a decade, who are willing to vouch that you can be trusted with the gun -- that you're of good character, mentally stable, and not likely to use the gun in an unlawful manner.\n\nYou can make the process pretty painless. You show up at Walmart with your 5 friends, you walk out with your gun. Heck, make gun buying a social activity.\n\nRednecks will still get their guns. People who are planning to stockpile ammunitions for the next Waco shootout with the feds will still be able to get their guns. The mafia will still get their guns.\n\nSo it won't completely stop gun violence in the country. However, it will be a major road block for the typical \"lone wolf shooter\" who does these mass shootings.\n\nPeople who know these shooters know they're mentally unstable and shouldn't have guns. In the case of the Covenant shooter, their parents knew they shouldn't own a gun. Even if they went to other friends who maybe don't know them so well, they would get a lot of questions about suddenly wanting to buy up enough guns for a small army.\n\nWhile most of these shooters have mental illnesses, and mental healthcare needs to be significantly improved, the reality is that a significant number of people with serious mental illnesses are never even diagnosed. Banning anyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun with result in even fewer people seeking treatment or being diagnosed, because most mental illnesses are diagnosed through voluntary therapy. \n\nThere are also cases where someone officially diagnosed with a mental illness has a justifiable need for a gun. For instance, a woman suffering PTSD from domestic violence might need a gun to protect themselves from their ex-partner who wants to kill them.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf9ngjr",
                    "author": "LigPortman69",
                    "body": "You\u2019re correct. A full 60% are in strong favor of the Second Amendment. It\u2019s not going anywhere. I doubt the military would enforce any \u201cdecree\u201d from above.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfarqj9",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable \n\nThe spike wouldn't prevent them from being able to surrender them later on; the grace period would no doubt account for this phenomenon.\n\n>Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it\n\nThis doesn't have much to do with our actual polices on gun control. It just shows our politicians aren't content with their citizens bloodshed at the hands of a few lunatics. It was still bigly unpopular for howard at the time, and political heads rolled over doing it.\n\n>Mental healthcare might help\n\nHeard this one quite a bit. Mental health issues aren't unique to the US, their access to guns is.\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings\n\nA violation of their first amendment\n\n>Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n\nA few things stops ours from being the all-in celebrity contest that america holds. We don't vote for our candidates directly, only their parties. And we have compulsory voting, which has the majority vote when they don't care about who they cast for. The more extreme you act(as is common in america) the less you score these voters.\n\n>Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot\n\nThis would not nearly be as effective as just copy pasting our gun control laws. License and lockup storage. Caliber restrictions. Self defense is not a legit reason to obtain and hold your license etc.\n\nAlso, Wendover did a pretty [decent look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM) at the relative effectiveness of our laws since their passing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfbljg6",
                    "author": "jajabingo2",
                    "body": "Australia does not have a raging left vs right battle anything like the USA \ud83d\ude02 \n\nAnd our proportional voting and donations oversight gives us a way different type of government here",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfefxs3",
                    "author": "TheDanimator",
                    "body": "We need to put more guns into the hands of good people so we can stop shootings.\nI dont believe this would solve everything, I do think it would help the problem though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfgy5nr",
                    "author": "D_Balgarus",
                    "body": "First off, gun violence statistics are inflated since they include suicides. \n\nSecond, most actual violence is gang violence in the big cities.\n\nIf we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk6z8d",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.\n\nHow isn't the USA already tough on crime if it has the world's highest incarnation rate?",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jfgy5nr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12cij50",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 772,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf30lwn",
                "author": "SingleMaltMouthwash",
                "body": ">The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it\n\nSome thoughts:\n\n\\~ Your gradual and peaceful separation from Britain followed a much different trajectory than ours. Because you didn't have a war over it, you aren't burdened with the poisonous delusion that weapons are a necessary element of your national or personal identity and self-esteem. \n\n\\~ From the beginning, America's cultural mix was heavy with paranoid, religiously fanatical puritans. These were people who'd already gained the right to practice their religion unmolested, but for whom this was not enough. They wanted a place where they could force others to submit to their faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Australia lacked that component in the initial conditions of your founding and so that psycho-pathology isn't baked into your national character.\n\n\\~ America expanded by invading and making war on what had been an enormous native population with a history of brutal tribal warfare. Firearms were a staple of the frontier for that reason; not so much for hunting as for homicide.\n\n\\~ America was a proxy battle ground for European warfare for some time. The English and French made war across the colonies, again ingraining bellicosity and paranoia into our psyche.\n\n\\~ The American colonies were mostly all begun with slave labor and only half of them gave up the practice voluntarily. A large population of slaves requires that the assholes enslaving them be perpetually armed to the teeth in order to suppress the constant threat of a bloody and well deserved uprising. \n\nAustralia, for the most part, escaped the folding of these psychoses into your national character and as a result your perspective on firearms is less delusional, less suicidal, more mature and sensible than is ours. \n\nDoes that make any sense from your perspective?",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "12cij50"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfk27aw",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nThe only point I disagree with is the one about the native population - we did genocide them, but IIRC, a large part of it was carried out by the state or with state approval, not on the volition of private citizens.",
                "date": "2023-04-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jf30lwn"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfk28vx",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/SingleMaltMouthwash ([30\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/SingleMaltMouthwash)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-09",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jfk27aw"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1jzav",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kyf4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?\n\nI am saying the latter. Say Joe Biden manages to pull off some masterful political puppeteering to enact gun control legislations similar to what John Howard did in 1996. It doesn't matter if it gets passed because past trends have shown us that the USA will experience panic buying of guns whenever there is a suspicion that gun control will be enacted.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1jzav"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kk0w",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run. \n\nThere is no reason to consider that spike to mean it's impossible, it barley matters in the larger scheme of things.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 39,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lcz8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run.\n\nFirstly, while this did happen in Australia, will this phenomenon necessarily happen too in the USA? \n\nSecondly, how many lives will it cost? Imagine the cops trying to seize guns from an angry gun owner - it would either result in a few cops getting killed, the gun owners getting killed, or both.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kk0w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kow3",
                    "author": "Squirt_memes",
                    "body": ">\tAny attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n\nI\u2019d say the gun control fails because it\u2019s very difficult to make a gun control bill that will pass all three branches of our government. Even just getting it past the representatives is quite difficult and the courts are unreceptive to violations of the second amendment. \n\n>\tMental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention,\n\nThat really depends what you mean by \u201cmass shooting\u201d. In your wiki list, I think there\u2019s 4 mass shooting so far this year that were unrelated to gang violence. And a couple dozen gang shooting that make it seem like mass shootings randomly happen all the time. \n\nGun violence is way bigger in America than most comparable countries, but it\u2019s really easy to let emotions cloud your brain. The vast majority of \u201cmass shootings\u201d pose no threat to normal people who don\u2019t live in a gang\u2019s turf. \n\n>\tSuppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI\u2019d say the media\u2019s obsession with coverage also makes it hard to know the true scale of the problem. It\u2019s crazy how many people I\u2019ll talk to who are TERRIFIED to send their kids to school. So I\u2019ll ask them \u201cdo you have any idea what the statistical chances are of a shooting involving your kid?\u201d Then they\u2019ll get pissed off and accuse me of hating children or something. \n\nThis whole issue is fed by a lack of objective information and a reliance on emotional arguments. \n\n>\tGiving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences\n\nYou need to go back a few decades if you want to claim violent video games increase violent activity without being made fun of. \n\n>\tThe USA\u2019s gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it\u2019s getting worse, if Wikipedia\u2019s list of mass shootings is to be believed.\n\nIt is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims. \n\nSo what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 65,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lly5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims.  \n>  \n>So what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.\r  \n\r\n\nOK, but either way, this just goes to prove my point that I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem. While I didn't put it in the post details, gun control legislation can't fix the gang crime problem either.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kow3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1l307",
                    "author": "NelsonMeme",
                    "body": "> Firstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it).\n\nThis doesn\u2019t make sense.\n\nFirst, it isn\u2019t true. The U.S. developed the rudiments of its gun culture living in frontiers, where guns were commonly used as weapons in armed combat or to secure game. This culture further developed when we forcefully secured our independence. \n\nAustralia is independent, did not have to become so forcefully, and did not develop our same culture after independence.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2fp1v",
                    "author": "NegroniHater",
                    "body": "The Wild West is a myth. And no, gun culture started in America when the second right guaranteed to every American is keeping and bearing arms. Gun control was created to keep former slaves from having those rights, which for almost 100 years had never been touched by the government. \n\nFucking Ben Franklin said you shouldn\u2019t go for a walk without a gun, Thomas Jefferson said guns stop homicides, George Washington said every American [probably only meant men] should be armed and trained. It\u2019s always been part of American culture, and sure as fuck didn\u2019t start on an Italian movie set with Clint Eastwood, because you apparently think that\u2019s an accurate depiction of history.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf1l307"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1of4b",
                    "author": "ProLifePanda",
                    "body": ">As for solutions to the problem?\n\nSo just to start, there is no \"100% solution\" to gun violence, just like there's no \"100% solution\" to car crashes, knife stabbings, bar fights, etc. As long as something is allowed (like owning cars, guns, being able to drink, etc.) there will be some negative consequences. So there are no gun control laws or regulations that will reduce gun violence/deaths to 0 (or even close to it).\n\nBut a big improvement would be the implementation of pervasive \"red flag\" laws. Many of the school shootings you see are done by people who show red flags beforehand. The Oxford shooter was literally in the principal's office for being a suspected school shooter the day he did the shooting. The recent Tennessee shooter messaged her friends beforehand with concerning messages before the shooting. There are a lot of other examples, but that's the idea that if we can \"take the guns first, due process later\", we can stop some of the shootings by obviously troubled individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1sdva",
                    "author": "Purely_Theoretical",
                    "body": "You can't possibly red flag the Nashville shooter that sent messages just minutes beforehand. \n\nThe real problem with red flag laws is they brush aside due process.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1of4b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1r31m",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "\"Gun violence problem\" seems like newspeak - it's the sort of thing that politicians say when they want an emotional reaction but don't really want to say anything.   Can you describe what you mean by \"gun violence problem\" in more concrete terms?\nIs there some way to check whether the \"gun violence problem\" has been solved that isn't just \"I know it when I see it\"?  Suppose, for example, that there were no more shootings in school and no more breathless media coverage but homicide rates in inner cities continued to rise, would that be an improvement in the \"gun violence problem\" or not?\n\nDo you think that all of the gun control laws that were passed in the US over the last 40 years were credible attempts to address gun violence, or is it possible that at least some of them were political pandering instead?\n\n> ... The USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if Wikipedia's list of mass shootings is to be believed. ...\n\nAt the same time, the trend is toward the same or less gun ownership.  ( https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html ).   Do you think that gun availability has substantively changed in the US over the last 30 years?  Do you think that changes in \"mental health issues\" (more newspeak) and increased media coverage of gun violence explain all of the \"getting worse\" or not?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1s9cp",
                    "author": "pudding7",
                    "body": "I would assume that \"Gun violence problem\" means people being intentionally shot with a gun.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jf1r31m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1vtje",
                    "author": "oddball667",
                    "body": "USA is in a weird not so cold civil war, this will last generations and it will prevent any major issue from being resolved",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1xl7g",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "The first step to solving the gun problem is to make lobbying illegal.  Corporations also shouldn\u2019t be able to donate to campaigns.\n\nOnce you take NRA money out of the equation, it becomes much easier to tackle.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1yc6v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Lobbying is huge in Australia. If we can have gun control despite that, so can the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf1xl7g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zj9y",
                    "author": "Thintegrator",
                    "body": "This is correct. We Americans have finally accepted that gun violence is an integral part of the American experience and that children dying from gunshot wounds in our schools is a small price to pay for the right to own weapons designed to kill. It is our core freedom. Anyone who thinks otherwise just stay the fuck out of our country. We got this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zo34",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Are you being sarcastic or sincere?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jf1zj9y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zwpg",
                    "author": "trash332",
                    "body": "We like our guns.  I would like to see more stringent background checks and maybe 30 day wait periods,  but only because every mass shooter has purchased their guns legally. Really, some people have to be more honest about their crazy ass family members.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf21ioj",
                    "author": "Sandy_hook_lemy",
                    "body": "Nonsense. Why is it always \"it can't work in the US\"? Has it been tried? Literally worked for every country so why not the US?\n\nThis is the same type of shit I see for why America cant have railway systems like Europeans. Try it first let's see. It cant be worse than it is now",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf228mw",
                    "author": "blade740",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with this take - the US and Australia are VERY different, namely the fact that the US has SIGNIFICANTLY higher levels of firearm proliferation than Australia ever did.  While Australia's ban/buybacks were able to make firearms relatively scarce, the amount of guns that would need to be taken off the street in the US to get us to roughly the same level is something like 90%.  It's just not feasible.  \n\nThat said, there is one point from your post in particular I want to debate:\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI am not arguing for forcibly SUPPRESSING media coverage, but I do think that the media circus that surrounds these events is a HUGE factor in driving mass shootings due to the media contagion effect.  I think that some best practice guidelines for major media organizations to (hopefully) voluntarily follow could help reduce the level at which children are introduced and accustomed to the idea of \"mass shootings\" in the first place, similar to the way the press (voluntarily) covers suicides to minimize media contagion.  \n\nTo address your point, I don't believe that the kind of media coverage we have today is necessary (or even helpful) in measuring the \"full scale\" of the problem.  If anything the scale of the problem is blown vastly out of proportion by the outsized attention media gives to these events.  The scale of the problem should be measured by scientific studies and good data collection, not by public outrage created by clickbait-driven capitalist news organizations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf22xmj",
                    "author": "FearLeadsToAnger",
                    "body": "> Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nThis is a fundamental problem with the individualistic nature of 'the american dream' the lone ranger archetype, and the reinforcement of the view that everyone else is stupid and only I know what i'm doing.\n\nOur main new sources are hot on the themes of 'everyone else' being stupid, sneaky and selfish, so it's only fair for you to do it too - 'I gadda git ma own'.\n\nLike you say, mental healthcare isn't the solution, the whole of society needs to be reframed through a more compassionate lens before anything improves.\n\n> After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable\n\nMy point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun, which frankly is what a weapon of potential mass murder deserves anyway. Sure, people would still stash guns, but if all hell rains down you any time you get it out, you're never going to get it out and it becomes irrelevant anyway.\n\nThe whole shtick about protecting yourself from the government if it goes rogue is archaic, if the government turns on the people we're fucked either way, what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? Our strength is in our numbers, not our arms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2ov0s",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "> My point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun\n\n....Like we did with drugs and alcohol?\n\n> what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? \n\nAsymmetric warfare can be a bitch. a fun poem about it: https://twitter.com/Huff4Congress/status/1623747713316581376",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jf22xmj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf233c7",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "[Stronger gun policies are associated with lower rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989)\n\n[96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases](http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)\n\n[There are things experts agree will work that the public also supports](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html)\n\n> [After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0\u00b739 [95% CI 0\u00b723\u20130\u00b767]; p=0\u00b7001), ammunition background checks (0\u00b718 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b736]; p<0\u00b70001), and identification requirement for firearms (0\u00b716 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b729]; p<0\u00b70001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10\u00b735 to 4\u00b746 deaths per 100\u2008000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1\u00b799 per 100\u2008000, and firearm identification to 1\u00b781 per 100\u2008000.](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2901026-0/abstract)\n\nWe even know what we need to do to get it:\n\n[46% of gun owners in the NRA have contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[15% of gun owners not in the NRA have ever contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[The NRA is powerful, but not because of its money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf23ea6",
                    "author": "HomoSupremacy",
                    "body": ">As an Australian\n\nDon't care",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf252f2",
                    "author": "Thebrotherleftbehind",
                    "body": "As an American, and former Republican, I want to disclose, I want gun control. That being said, democrats are just as much to blame for the lack of gun control as republicans.\n\nOutside of domestic violence involving guns, I think the biggest problem we have with guns are the \u201cmass\u201d shootings. The problem is, they group all shootings in together. Suicide is also considered as homicide in gun stats. That is misleading and makes you seem untrustworthy. If two rival gangs get in a shootout, let\u2019s stop calling that a mass shooting. If someone writes a manifesto and shoots up a school, that to me is a mass shooting.\n\nYou don\u2019t solve gun violence with gangs by banning them, you tackle the socioeconomic issues that create the gangs in the first place.\n\nThe gun control conversation needs to be had with a MULTI pronged approach with clear definitions of what we are attributing to the violence and how to stop each thing. Yeah republicans offer thoughts and prayers instead of gun control legislation (sometimes going the opposite way in fact, Florida anyone?), and democrats use misleading and false information instead of legislation. We really need more parties in the USA.\n\nI see a lot of the same problems in both parties. Most of the elected officials on both sides say what their constituents want them to say, but what they actually do is really all about themselves and stayed in power. Yes dnc, you have the same problem as the gop, ie aoc. Aoc is all about aoc and will always be about aoc. But she\u2019s very social media savvy and knows what to say to her constituents. Look at how she speaks depending on the color of the skin of her audience. I\u2019ll admit, the dnc is slightly better, like with the Texas cold snap etc, but call me jaded, but to me I think they just have better marketing than the gop. I admit between the two though, I hate the gop much much more",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4lir3",
                    "author": "johnhtman",
                    "body": "Mass shootings are one of the least serious problems when it comes to guns or homicides. Going by the FBI numbers between 2000-2019 they averaged 53.1 people killed a year, with 2017 being the deadliest year with 138 people killed, 60 in the Vegas Shooting alone. That same year a total of 17,294 people were murdered, which means mass shootings during the worst year on record were responsible for 0.8% of total murders.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jf252f2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2550y",
                    "author": "Ok-Independent-5782",
                    "body": "American's will never give up their firearms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf27z5d",
                    "author": "yelkca",
                    "body": "For those of us who live here, giving up isn't really an option. But thanks for your input",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ywsa",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Look, I'm getting a lot of commenters whose points boil down to \"*[ackshually, it's all a gang problem](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf1kow3?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\" or \"*[we need guns to defend ourselves](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf2fhr9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\", or \"*[look at Chicago's problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf3hmn9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\". How can I rebut them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf27z5d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf29m7m",
                    "author": "El_Burrito_Grande",
                    "body": "There's a solution to mass shootings, at least. It's in your post. The people who do it get attention. The media facilitates that. There were a lot of guns before mass shootings became such a big trend. THE reason there are so many school shootings/mass shootings is the rise of the sensationalistic 24 hour news cycle/social media. It's a copycat thing/trend. If the media squelched it and didn't talk about the shooters it would die down. It's THE solution. I don't see that happening though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2e3af",
                    "author": "Character_Ad_7058",
                    "body": "The main reason there cannot be *ANY* effective control on guns in the US is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and the broad court precedents in interpreting it.) In the US, for example, if we tried such a buyback program we would react as you indicated, in terms of selling record amounts of new guns and ammunition. But, an additional reaction (that makes such a program a non-starter) is that funding for it would never be approved. Even if, my some miracle, it did, it would be extremely vulnerable to a court challenge and would eventually be denied.\n\nFew other nations have such a supreme, blanket right to guns as we have in the US. And, we\u2019re essentially stuck with it because the only option would be to further amend the constitution, which is a non-starter as it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of State Legislatures.) Such a majority in either State or Federal legislatures just isn\u2019t conceivable in the foreseeable future.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2euoo",
                    "author": "NuJoisi",
                    "body": "There's no way for you to get an actual reply or information from Reddit, the real information is banned.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f2pz",
                    "author": "ShutYourDumbUglyFace",
                    "body": "I don't have any idea what the solution is to our problem (I mean, I think it's making it harder to buy a gun - but I have no idea how we get there), but I will say that I don't think it stems from the revolution. I think it's more related to the Wild West and the glorification of the perceived violence and lawlessness - and fierce independence - that pervaded that era. The irony is that most towns at that time, in the west, [were gun-free](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/) and you had to leave your firearm with the sheriff. \n\nThis narrative ties in with the (false) narrative that guns increase safety. In the Wild West, there were various \"enemies\" that you had to contend with - thieves and wild animals, and of course, pissed off native Americans. Your gun kept you safe. Nowadays, people still believe that having a gun in their home keeps them safe - despite statistics to the contrary. Anecdotal evidence will always reign supreme over statistical data for these people. One 70-year-old man who fends off a home invasion will always carry more weight than statistics showing that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of (successful) [suicide](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) by 8x for men and 35x for women.\n\nFurther, I think our politicians and talking heads (and those everywhere, honestly) are able to tap into a profound fear that Americans have about all kinds of things - home invasions, brown people coming to take jobs, etc. Fear is the underlying motivator for humans, so tapping into that produces incredible results. And there are sects that use government interference like at Waco and Ruby Ridge to stoke fear of government overreach - and how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from that (although, as I've noted in the past, the US government has an arsenal that no quantity AR-15's is going to rival).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f4wr",
                    "author": "THSea_Aye111",
                    "body": "Gin buy back programs do work in the US, even in conservative areas: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/08/30/gun-buybacks-are-popular-but-are-they-effective",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2olr4",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "The link you cited seems to say the opposite? That a few hundred generally older, and less functional guns are turned in, doesn't seem to me to scream great success in a county with hundreds of millions?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf2f4wr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2hjw7",
                    "author": "src88",
                    "body": "Sorry but there are over 2 million defensive gun incidents a year where good people save themselves. Less guns would have resulted in more death. Considering most of our gun stats come from gang violence (mainly in the biggest cities) and suicide. The argument has been and always will be weak. \n\nAlso we ain't Australia with covid internment camps because we are armed and the government knows it's not in complete control. Hence, why they want to disarm the public using the bodies of children. Absolute power corrupts. Our founding fathers knew it.\n\nJust took a look at the top comments and all their sources are left wing sites. Hmmm",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2rcy0",
                    "author": "Zncon",
                    "body": ">Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nWith more study, this is proving to be less true then we thought for a long time. Mass shootings outside of gang violence tend to be a complicated form of suicide.\n\nWe know that suicides can be somewhat contagious and driven by the news media, which can also connect the increase shootings we see as a result of that coverage.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2wujm",
                    "author": "RevolutionaryBug8528",
                    "body": "It's not even a problem with the proper American mindset. Any shortfall in future consumer laborers resulting from mass shootings (improbable that it would amount to anything significant) can be made up for with the proper immigration and \"healthcare\" policies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2yox7",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "A solution does exist, but I think it's too extreme / complex to be  actually adopted. At its core gun reform and fixing gun violence requires a dramatic shift in culture away from pro-gun behaviour. This includes forking over rights to own a gun easily, because as long as there are so many guns and so many people own them, we cannot prevent them from being resold, shared, or otherwise being given to people who are mentally ill or likely to be violent and enact shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2z565",
                    "author": "IndyPoker979",
                    "body": "I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nIn all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\n\nTo put it simply, no one is suddenly a race car driver just because they play Forza. Counter-Strike players do not automatically become good at paintball. This is not a good example of a healthy outlet for an individual at risk",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk1xi8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nThe point I made in the post details is that I don't think it would solve the mass shooter problem if the education system provided FPS games to fulfil the desire to shoot. I know so many people who play FPS games, and none of them are itching to fire into an innocent crowd. \n\n>In all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\r  \n\r\n\nI do support universal healthcare and improved mental healthcare.",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf2z565"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf31rvn",
                    "author": "Obsidian743",
                    "body": "I see no reason that if we pass laws that make guns et. al. difficult if not impossible to buy/own/use, then over time, the overall gun/ammo/accessory/culture supply will disappear. The only obstacle is passing those laws. I always hear arguments against the \"practicality\" of getting people to turn in or sell their guns. We don't need to do that. We simply strangle the supply and let time do the rest of the work.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3hmn9",
                    "author": "Navlgazer",
                    "body": "Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\nJust look at chicago .\n\nThe people who want to ban guns and think that 25-40 million \u201cassault weapons \u201c can be confiscated and stolen from their owners , are also the exact same  people who say that 15 million illegal immigrants is too many to round up and deport . \n\nSee the hypocrisy here ?\n\nAnd no one except liberals trust the govt .\nPeople with a brain know the govt is corrupt and bought and laid for by lobbyists and special interest groups and does as they are told by their donors.\n\nThe same govt that says they will protect you if you give up your right and means to protect yourself , are the same govt that can\u2019t secure a border . Yet tells you everyday that the border  is secure even though two million illegals waltz across every month , and bring tons of fentanyl with them . The same fentanyl that kills ten times more people than are murdered  with guns .\n\nAnd liberals don\u2019t care about people being killed .\nIf those school kids had been aborted babies instead , the liberals would have been praising the mothers for killing them before they were born . \nLiberals won\u2019t ever talk about how many people are killed in Chicago every weekend.\nBecause Chicago is and has been run by democrats for decades .\n\nMurder is against the law , every school is a \u201c gun free zone \u201c\n \nThe ONLY thing that stops a nut job crazy person with a gun , is a good guy with a gun.\n\nThe faster the good guy shows up with a gun , the less innocent people killed .",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zyxw",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\n>Just look at chicago .\n\nChicago is an embarrassment to left wingers everywhere, even in Australia.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf3hmn9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ijy9",
                    "author": "Sinfultitan_001",
                    "body": "We don't have a gun violence problem we have a **MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS** that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zks9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">We don't have a gun violence problem we have a MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.\n\nSo does Australia and a lot of other countries. Yet our gun violence rate is lower. Would you link that to our gun control laws or our universal healthcare?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf3ijy9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3xhxv",
                    "author": "buttholefluid",
                    "body": "I know what won\u2019t, more laws.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3z3v1",
                    "author": "CITYCATZCOUSIN",
                    "body": "Your first paragraph...!",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf43tu4",
                    "author": "themetahumancrusader",
                    "body": "As an Australian, I disagree with you on Australia having a similar right vs left culture war. Our \u201cculture war\u201d is very subdued in comparison to the US.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf44bub",
                    "author": "burnblue",
                    "body": "Pass the gun restrictions, let who needs to panic buy guns go ahead and panic buy before the law kicks in, then let people get over it and needing licenses or checks to get firearms will just be the normal law of the land the same way other things are.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf45s9x",
                    "author": "PrincessTrunks125",
                    "body": "1) make gun purchases more readily traceable \n\n\n2) the original purchaser of the gun is responsible for all crimes committed with it \n\nThat would be a huge start.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf46qms",
                    "author": "AdamicAtom",
                    "body": "America doesn't have a gun violence problem, or a racism problem or any other problem more important than this:  America has a culture problem.  And everyone everywhere knows it is at the core of all of this but will never admit that between classes and cultures in America, there will never be consensus or compromise.\n\nAnd the media and all the politicians know it and do everything they can to keep it this way.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf48p8f",
                    "author": "Mindless-Umpire7420",
                    "body": "America has criminal gangs and cartel from the south, Australia is a massive island continent. The reason Australia\u2019s gun control works is because it\u2019s an island nation, it\u2019s harder to smuggle guns through an ocean than the Mexican border",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4d3k9",
                    "author": "Green_and_black",
                    "body": "Gun violence is actually not that big a problem (it\u2019s Americans shooting Americans). The bigger problem is BOMB violence. This is worse because the seppos are exporting the violence.\nThe best way to prevent bomb violence is Balkanisation of the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf56ckw",
                    "author": "canwepleasejustnot",
                    "body": "The reality is that we have a much larger problem in this country, an existential one, that is resulting in everyone becoming more and more fractured and isolated, and violent. Taking legally obtained guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't really fix that problem and I genuinely believe that a large faction of Americans believe this deep down. Those calling for full bans tend to think that people are generally good and law abiding but it's just not true. If it comes down to it I'd rather be able to defend myself.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5atv1",
                    "author": "pilzn3r",
                    "body": "We have a mental health crisis in America.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeuuzf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I won't deny that but it's daft to think that you're the only country with a mental health crisis. Would you support universal health care to help tackle this crisis?",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5atv1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5g21c",
                    "author": "Psycheau",
                    "body": "If we take a more pragmatic military look at the USA they have Russia on one side. If Putin went completely mental and decided to invade the US and the military was spread to far across the globe for a quick response a land invasion on US soil would be a very problematic assault. When the people are armed a land assault could be easily thwarted by local militia holding their ground. Especially when lots of the public have automatic assault rifles it would be a simple matter to put together a small militia in each city to hold ground while the military get the logistics sorted. \n\nWhen people look at the gun situation in the USA they never seem to acknowledge the fact that they are in a very unique geological situation having a border with a potential enemy. There are other threats as well as Russia but it is the most obvious potential threat. Of course many people will know that Russia doesn't have the resources to attack the USA, but that does not mean they will never try, even in desperation.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeu5jb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If Russia (or any other hostile nation) were to obliterate the American military and put boots on the ground in the USA, you can bet that nukes will launch. That's probably a greater deterrent than having an armed populace.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5g21c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6qvfu",
                    "author": "StarMNF",
                    "body": "I've given this some thought, and I think I have a gun control measure that would eliminate most mass shootings in the U.S. without effecting most gun owners.\n\nThe idea is simple. To buy a gun, you need to get affidavits from 5 people who have known you well for at least a decade, who are willing to vouch that you can be trusted with the gun -- that you're of good character, mentally stable, and not likely to use the gun in an unlawful manner.\n\nYou can make the process pretty painless. You show up at Walmart with your 5 friends, you walk out with your gun. Heck, make gun buying a social activity.\n\nRednecks will still get their guns. People who are planning to stockpile ammunitions for the next Waco shootout with the feds will still be able to get their guns. The mafia will still get their guns.\n\nSo it won't completely stop gun violence in the country. However, it will be a major road block for the typical \"lone wolf shooter\" who does these mass shootings.\n\nPeople who know these shooters know they're mentally unstable and shouldn't have guns. In the case of the Covenant shooter, their parents knew they shouldn't own a gun. Even if they went to other friends who maybe don't know them so well, they would get a lot of questions about suddenly wanting to buy up enough guns for a small army.\n\nWhile most of these shooters have mental illnesses, and mental healthcare needs to be significantly improved, the reality is that a significant number of people with serious mental illnesses are never even diagnosed. Banning anyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun with result in even fewer people seeking treatment or being diagnosed, because most mental illnesses are diagnosed through voluntary therapy. \n\nThere are also cases where someone officially diagnosed with a mental illness has a justifiable need for a gun. For instance, a woman suffering PTSD from domestic violence might need a gun to protect themselves from their ex-partner who wants to kill them.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf9ngjr",
                    "author": "LigPortman69",
                    "body": "You\u2019re correct. A full 60% are in strong favor of the Second Amendment. It\u2019s not going anywhere. I doubt the military would enforce any \u201cdecree\u201d from above.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfarqj9",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable \n\nThe spike wouldn't prevent them from being able to surrender them later on; the grace period would no doubt account for this phenomenon.\n\n>Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it\n\nThis doesn't have much to do with our actual polices on gun control. It just shows our politicians aren't content with their citizens bloodshed at the hands of a few lunatics. It was still bigly unpopular for howard at the time, and political heads rolled over doing it.\n\n>Mental healthcare might help\n\nHeard this one quite a bit. Mental health issues aren't unique to the US, their access to guns is.\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings\n\nA violation of their first amendment\n\n>Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n\nA few things stops ours from being the all-in celebrity contest that america holds. We don't vote for our candidates directly, only their parties. And we have compulsory voting, which has the majority vote when they don't care about who they cast for. The more extreme you act(as is common in america) the less you score these voters.\n\n>Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot\n\nThis would not nearly be as effective as just copy pasting our gun control laws. License and lockup storage. Caliber restrictions. Self defense is not a legit reason to obtain and hold your license etc.\n\nAlso, Wendover did a pretty [decent look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM) at the relative effectiveness of our laws since their passing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfbljg6",
                    "author": "jajabingo2",
                    "body": "Australia does not have a raging left vs right battle anything like the USA \ud83d\ude02 \n\nAnd our proportional voting and donations oversight gives us a way different type of government here",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfefxs3",
                    "author": "TheDanimator",
                    "body": "We need to put more guns into the hands of good people so we can stop shootings.\nI dont believe this would solve everything, I do think it would help the problem though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfgy5nr",
                    "author": "D_Balgarus",
                    "body": "First off, gun violence statistics are inflated since they include suicides. \n\nSecond, most actual violence is gang violence in the big cities.\n\nIf we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk6z8d",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.\n\nHow isn't the USA already tough on crime if it has the world's highest incarnation rate?",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jfgy5nr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12cij50",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 772,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf3ojfn",
                "author": "edude45",
                "body": "It would have to be freely accessible mental/Healthcare. A major health procedure for a person even with insurance, can still leave them bankrupt. So that would need to be fixed so people don't stress over that. \n\nNext would be socialeconomic welfare of people. Prices of living has been rising while the wage of people has barely been moving. People are getting desperate. There is more pressure to pay your debts than their is to live your life. People are losing it. Helping fix this where someone doesn't need to work multiple jobs to pay rent would help. \n\nSocial media, has taken over people's lives. Parents are letting a tablet parent rather than actually parent and teach kids respect.  So in turn other kids (and even parents) have become more bullies online. Some people don't know how to step back and deal with it and it drives them to depression and suicide. Or lash out and take people with them through gun violence. \n\nThen only after doing any of that, which no politicians would even touch because that's career suicide under the criminal organizations known as the democrats and Republicans, if things were changed for the better of people, it would still take generations to actually make a difference. \n\nIt's either that, or people have their rights stripped away. Something Americans are already slowly being conditioned to lose.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "12cij50"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfk3z4s",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">It would have to be freely accessible mental/Healthcare. A major health procedure for a person even with insurance, can still leave them bankrupt. So that would need to be fixed so people don't stress over that.\n\n!delta\n\nI do support this. Also, it's absurd that the USA still hasn't enacted universal healthcare when other rich countries have proven that it not only works, but is also cheaper overall than what the USA does.\n\n>It's either that, or people have their rights stripped away. Something Americans are already slowly being conditioned to lose.\r  \n\r\n\nThat's another problem I'm noticing (at least on social media) - namely that American conservatives are so concerned about rights to guns, while gladly throwing away rights to be trans, to be woke etc.",
                "date": "2023-04-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jf3ojfn"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfk40td",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/edude45 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/edude45)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jfk3z4s"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1jzav",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kyf4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?\n\nI am saying the latter. Say Joe Biden manages to pull off some masterful political puppeteering to enact gun control legislations similar to what John Howard did in 1996. It doesn't matter if it gets passed because past trends have shown us that the USA will experience panic buying of guns whenever there is a suspicion that gun control will be enacted.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1jzav"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kk0w",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run. \n\nThere is no reason to consider that spike to mean it's impossible, it barley matters in the larger scheme of things.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 39,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lcz8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run.\n\nFirstly, while this did happen in Australia, will this phenomenon necessarily happen too in the USA? \n\nSecondly, how many lives will it cost? Imagine the cops trying to seize guns from an angry gun owner - it would either result in a few cops getting killed, the gun owners getting killed, or both.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kk0w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kow3",
                    "author": "Squirt_memes",
                    "body": ">\tAny attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n\nI\u2019d say the gun control fails because it\u2019s very difficult to make a gun control bill that will pass all three branches of our government. Even just getting it past the representatives is quite difficult and the courts are unreceptive to violations of the second amendment. \n\n>\tMental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention,\n\nThat really depends what you mean by \u201cmass shooting\u201d. In your wiki list, I think there\u2019s 4 mass shooting so far this year that were unrelated to gang violence. And a couple dozen gang shooting that make it seem like mass shootings randomly happen all the time. \n\nGun violence is way bigger in America than most comparable countries, but it\u2019s really easy to let emotions cloud your brain. The vast majority of \u201cmass shootings\u201d pose no threat to normal people who don\u2019t live in a gang\u2019s turf. \n\n>\tSuppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI\u2019d say the media\u2019s obsession with coverage also makes it hard to know the true scale of the problem. It\u2019s crazy how many people I\u2019ll talk to who are TERRIFIED to send their kids to school. So I\u2019ll ask them \u201cdo you have any idea what the statistical chances are of a shooting involving your kid?\u201d Then they\u2019ll get pissed off and accuse me of hating children or something. \n\nThis whole issue is fed by a lack of objective information and a reliance on emotional arguments. \n\n>\tGiving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences\n\nYou need to go back a few decades if you want to claim violent video games increase violent activity without being made fun of. \n\n>\tThe USA\u2019s gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it\u2019s getting worse, if Wikipedia\u2019s list of mass shootings is to be believed.\n\nIt is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims. \n\nSo what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 65,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lly5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims.  \n>  \n>So what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.\r  \n\r\n\nOK, but either way, this just goes to prove my point that I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem. While I didn't put it in the post details, gun control legislation can't fix the gang crime problem either.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kow3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1l307",
                    "author": "NelsonMeme",
                    "body": "> Firstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it).\n\nThis doesn\u2019t make sense.\n\nFirst, it isn\u2019t true. The U.S. developed the rudiments of its gun culture living in frontiers, where guns were commonly used as weapons in armed combat or to secure game. This culture further developed when we forcefully secured our independence. \n\nAustralia is independent, did not have to become so forcefully, and did not develop our same culture after independence.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2fp1v",
                    "author": "NegroniHater",
                    "body": "The Wild West is a myth. And no, gun culture started in America when the second right guaranteed to every American is keeping and bearing arms. Gun control was created to keep former slaves from having those rights, which for almost 100 years had never been touched by the government. \n\nFucking Ben Franklin said you shouldn\u2019t go for a walk without a gun, Thomas Jefferson said guns stop homicides, George Washington said every American [probably only meant men] should be armed and trained. It\u2019s always been part of American culture, and sure as fuck didn\u2019t start on an Italian movie set with Clint Eastwood, because you apparently think that\u2019s an accurate depiction of history.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf1l307"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1of4b",
                    "author": "ProLifePanda",
                    "body": ">As for solutions to the problem?\n\nSo just to start, there is no \"100% solution\" to gun violence, just like there's no \"100% solution\" to car crashes, knife stabbings, bar fights, etc. As long as something is allowed (like owning cars, guns, being able to drink, etc.) there will be some negative consequences. So there are no gun control laws or regulations that will reduce gun violence/deaths to 0 (or even close to it).\n\nBut a big improvement would be the implementation of pervasive \"red flag\" laws. Many of the school shootings you see are done by people who show red flags beforehand. The Oxford shooter was literally in the principal's office for being a suspected school shooter the day he did the shooting. The recent Tennessee shooter messaged her friends beforehand with concerning messages before the shooting. There are a lot of other examples, but that's the idea that if we can \"take the guns first, due process later\", we can stop some of the shootings by obviously troubled individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1sdva",
                    "author": "Purely_Theoretical",
                    "body": "You can't possibly red flag the Nashville shooter that sent messages just minutes beforehand. \n\nThe real problem with red flag laws is they brush aside due process.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1of4b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1r31m",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "\"Gun violence problem\" seems like newspeak - it's the sort of thing that politicians say when they want an emotional reaction but don't really want to say anything.   Can you describe what you mean by \"gun violence problem\" in more concrete terms?\nIs there some way to check whether the \"gun violence problem\" has been solved that isn't just \"I know it when I see it\"?  Suppose, for example, that there were no more shootings in school and no more breathless media coverage but homicide rates in inner cities continued to rise, would that be an improvement in the \"gun violence problem\" or not?\n\nDo you think that all of the gun control laws that were passed in the US over the last 40 years were credible attempts to address gun violence, or is it possible that at least some of them were political pandering instead?\n\n> ... The USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if Wikipedia's list of mass shootings is to be believed. ...\n\nAt the same time, the trend is toward the same or less gun ownership.  ( https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html ).   Do you think that gun availability has substantively changed in the US over the last 30 years?  Do you think that changes in \"mental health issues\" (more newspeak) and increased media coverage of gun violence explain all of the \"getting worse\" or not?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1s9cp",
                    "author": "pudding7",
                    "body": "I would assume that \"Gun violence problem\" means people being intentionally shot with a gun.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jf1r31m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1vtje",
                    "author": "oddball667",
                    "body": "USA is in a weird not so cold civil war, this will last generations and it will prevent any major issue from being resolved",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1xl7g",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "The first step to solving the gun problem is to make lobbying illegal.  Corporations also shouldn\u2019t be able to donate to campaigns.\n\nOnce you take NRA money out of the equation, it becomes much easier to tackle.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1yc6v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Lobbying is huge in Australia. If we can have gun control despite that, so can the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf1xl7g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zj9y",
                    "author": "Thintegrator",
                    "body": "This is correct. We Americans have finally accepted that gun violence is an integral part of the American experience and that children dying from gunshot wounds in our schools is a small price to pay for the right to own weapons designed to kill. It is our core freedom. Anyone who thinks otherwise just stay the fuck out of our country. We got this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zo34",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Are you being sarcastic or sincere?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jf1zj9y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zwpg",
                    "author": "trash332",
                    "body": "We like our guns.  I would like to see more stringent background checks and maybe 30 day wait periods,  but only because every mass shooter has purchased their guns legally. Really, some people have to be more honest about their crazy ass family members.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf21ioj",
                    "author": "Sandy_hook_lemy",
                    "body": "Nonsense. Why is it always \"it can't work in the US\"? Has it been tried? Literally worked for every country so why not the US?\n\nThis is the same type of shit I see for why America cant have railway systems like Europeans. Try it first let's see. It cant be worse than it is now",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf228mw",
                    "author": "blade740",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with this take - the US and Australia are VERY different, namely the fact that the US has SIGNIFICANTLY higher levels of firearm proliferation than Australia ever did.  While Australia's ban/buybacks were able to make firearms relatively scarce, the amount of guns that would need to be taken off the street in the US to get us to roughly the same level is something like 90%.  It's just not feasible.  \n\nThat said, there is one point from your post in particular I want to debate:\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI am not arguing for forcibly SUPPRESSING media coverage, but I do think that the media circus that surrounds these events is a HUGE factor in driving mass shootings due to the media contagion effect.  I think that some best practice guidelines for major media organizations to (hopefully) voluntarily follow could help reduce the level at which children are introduced and accustomed to the idea of \"mass shootings\" in the first place, similar to the way the press (voluntarily) covers suicides to minimize media contagion.  \n\nTo address your point, I don't believe that the kind of media coverage we have today is necessary (or even helpful) in measuring the \"full scale\" of the problem.  If anything the scale of the problem is blown vastly out of proportion by the outsized attention media gives to these events.  The scale of the problem should be measured by scientific studies and good data collection, not by public outrage created by clickbait-driven capitalist news organizations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf22xmj",
                    "author": "FearLeadsToAnger",
                    "body": "> Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nThis is a fundamental problem with the individualistic nature of 'the american dream' the lone ranger archetype, and the reinforcement of the view that everyone else is stupid and only I know what i'm doing.\n\nOur main new sources are hot on the themes of 'everyone else' being stupid, sneaky and selfish, so it's only fair for you to do it too - 'I gadda git ma own'.\n\nLike you say, mental healthcare isn't the solution, the whole of society needs to be reframed through a more compassionate lens before anything improves.\n\n> After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable\n\nMy point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun, which frankly is what a weapon of potential mass murder deserves anyway. Sure, people would still stash guns, but if all hell rains down you any time you get it out, you're never going to get it out and it becomes irrelevant anyway.\n\nThe whole shtick about protecting yourself from the government if it goes rogue is archaic, if the government turns on the people we're fucked either way, what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? Our strength is in our numbers, not our arms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2ov0s",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "> My point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun\n\n....Like we did with drugs and alcohol?\n\n> what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? \n\nAsymmetric warfare can be a bitch. a fun poem about it: https://twitter.com/Huff4Congress/status/1623747713316581376",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jf22xmj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf233c7",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "[Stronger gun policies are associated with lower rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989)\n\n[96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases](http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)\n\n[There are things experts agree will work that the public also supports](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html)\n\n> [After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0\u00b739 [95% CI 0\u00b723\u20130\u00b767]; p=0\u00b7001), ammunition background checks (0\u00b718 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b736]; p<0\u00b70001), and identification requirement for firearms (0\u00b716 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b729]; p<0\u00b70001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10\u00b735 to 4\u00b746 deaths per 100\u2008000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1\u00b799 per 100\u2008000, and firearm identification to 1\u00b781 per 100\u2008000.](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2901026-0/abstract)\n\nWe even know what we need to do to get it:\n\n[46% of gun owners in the NRA have contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[15% of gun owners not in the NRA have ever contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[The NRA is powerful, but not because of its money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf23ea6",
                    "author": "HomoSupremacy",
                    "body": ">As an Australian\n\nDon't care",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf252f2",
                    "author": "Thebrotherleftbehind",
                    "body": "As an American, and former Republican, I want to disclose, I want gun control. That being said, democrats are just as much to blame for the lack of gun control as republicans.\n\nOutside of domestic violence involving guns, I think the biggest problem we have with guns are the \u201cmass\u201d shootings. The problem is, they group all shootings in together. Suicide is also considered as homicide in gun stats. That is misleading and makes you seem untrustworthy. If two rival gangs get in a shootout, let\u2019s stop calling that a mass shooting. If someone writes a manifesto and shoots up a school, that to me is a mass shooting.\n\nYou don\u2019t solve gun violence with gangs by banning them, you tackle the socioeconomic issues that create the gangs in the first place.\n\nThe gun control conversation needs to be had with a MULTI pronged approach with clear definitions of what we are attributing to the violence and how to stop each thing. Yeah republicans offer thoughts and prayers instead of gun control legislation (sometimes going the opposite way in fact, Florida anyone?), and democrats use misleading and false information instead of legislation. We really need more parties in the USA.\n\nI see a lot of the same problems in both parties. Most of the elected officials on both sides say what their constituents want them to say, but what they actually do is really all about themselves and stayed in power. Yes dnc, you have the same problem as the gop, ie aoc. Aoc is all about aoc and will always be about aoc. But she\u2019s very social media savvy and knows what to say to her constituents. Look at how she speaks depending on the color of the skin of her audience. I\u2019ll admit, the dnc is slightly better, like with the Texas cold snap etc, but call me jaded, but to me I think they just have better marketing than the gop. I admit between the two though, I hate the gop much much more",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4lir3",
                    "author": "johnhtman",
                    "body": "Mass shootings are one of the least serious problems when it comes to guns or homicides. Going by the FBI numbers between 2000-2019 they averaged 53.1 people killed a year, with 2017 being the deadliest year with 138 people killed, 60 in the Vegas Shooting alone. That same year a total of 17,294 people were murdered, which means mass shootings during the worst year on record were responsible for 0.8% of total murders.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jf252f2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2550y",
                    "author": "Ok-Independent-5782",
                    "body": "American's will never give up their firearms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf27z5d",
                    "author": "yelkca",
                    "body": "For those of us who live here, giving up isn't really an option. But thanks for your input",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ywsa",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Look, I'm getting a lot of commenters whose points boil down to \"*[ackshually, it's all a gang problem](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf1kow3?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\" or \"*[we need guns to defend ourselves](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf2fhr9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\", or \"*[look at Chicago's problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf3hmn9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\". How can I rebut them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf27z5d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf29m7m",
                    "author": "El_Burrito_Grande",
                    "body": "There's a solution to mass shootings, at least. It's in your post. The people who do it get attention. The media facilitates that. There were a lot of guns before mass shootings became such a big trend. THE reason there are so many school shootings/mass shootings is the rise of the sensationalistic 24 hour news cycle/social media. It's a copycat thing/trend. If the media squelched it and didn't talk about the shooters it would die down. It's THE solution. I don't see that happening though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2e3af",
                    "author": "Character_Ad_7058",
                    "body": "The main reason there cannot be *ANY* effective control on guns in the US is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and the broad court precedents in interpreting it.) In the US, for example, if we tried such a buyback program we would react as you indicated, in terms of selling record amounts of new guns and ammunition. But, an additional reaction (that makes such a program a non-starter) is that funding for it would never be approved. Even if, my some miracle, it did, it would be extremely vulnerable to a court challenge and would eventually be denied.\n\nFew other nations have such a supreme, blanket right to guns as we have in the US. And, we\u2019re essentially stuck with it because the only option would be to further amend the constitution, which is a non-starter as it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of State Legislatures.) Such a majority in either State or Federal legislatures just isn\u2019t conceivable in the foreseeable future.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2euoo",
                    "author": "NuJoisi",
                    "body": "There's no way for you to get an actual reply or information from Reddit, the real information is banned.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f2pz",
                    "author": "ShutYourDumbUglyFace",
                    "body": "I don't have any idea what the solution is to our problem (I mean, I think it's making it harder to buy a gun - but I have no idea how we get there), but I will say that I don't think it stems from the revolution. I think it's more related to the Wild West and the glorification of the perceived violence and lawlessness - and fierce independence - that pervaded that era. The irony is that most towns at that time, in the west, [were gun-free](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/) and you had to leave your firearm with the sheriff. \n\nThis narrative ties in with the (false) narrative that guns increase safety. In the Wild West, there were various \"enemies\" that you had to contend with - thieves and wild animals, and of course, pissed off native Americans. Your gun kept you safe. Nowadays, people still believe that having a gun in their home keeps them safe - despite statistics to the contrary. Anecdotal evidence will always reign supreme over statistical data for these people. One 70-year-old man who fends off a home invasion will always carry more weight than statistics showing that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of (successful) [suicide](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) by 8x for men and 35x for women.\n\nFurther, I think our politicians and talking heads (and those everywhere, honestly) are able to tap into a profound fear that Americans have about all kinds of things - home invasions, brown people coming to take jobs, etc. Fear is the underlying motivator for humans, so tapping into that produces incredible results. And there are sects that use government interference like at Waco and Ruby Ridge to stoke fear of government overreach - and how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from that (although, as I've noted in the past, the US government has an arsenal that no quantity AR-15's is going to rival).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f4wr",
                    "author": "THSea_Aye111",
                    "body": "Gin buy back programs do work in the US, even in conservative areas: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/08/30/gun-buybacks-are-popular-but-are-they-effective",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2olr4",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "The link you cited seems to say the opposite? That a few hundred generally older, and less functional guns are turned in, doesn't seem to me to scream great success in a county with hundreds of millions?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf2f4wr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2hjw7",
                    "author": "src88",
                    "body": "Sorry but there are over 2 million defensive gun incidents a year where good people save themselves. Less guns would have resulted in more death. Considering most of our gun stats come from gang violence (mainly in the biggest cities) and suicide. The argument has been and always will be weak. \n\nAlso we ain't Australia with covid internment camps because we are armed and the government knows it's not in complete control. Hence, why they want to disarm the public using the bodies of children. Absolute power corrupts. Our founding fathers knew it.\n\nJust took a look at the top comments and all their sources are left wing sites. Hmmm",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2rcy0",
                    "author": "Zncon",
                    "body": ">Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nWith more study, this is proving to be less true then we thought for a long time. Mass shootings outside of gang violence tend to be a complicated form of suicide.\n\nWe know that suicides can be somewhat contagious and driven by the news media, which can also connect the increase shootings we see as a result of that coverage.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2wujm",
                    "author": "RevolutionaryBug8528",
                    "body": "It's not even a problem with the proper American mindset. Any shortfall in future consumer laborers resulting from mass shootings (improbable that it would amount to anything significant) can be made up for with the proper immigration and \"healthcare\" policies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2yox7",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "A solution does exist, but I think it's too extreme / complex to be  actually adopted. At its core gun reform and fixing gun violence requires a dramatic shift in culture away from pro-gun behaviour. This includes forking over rights to own a gun easily, because as long as there are so many guns and so many people own them, we cannot prevent them from being resold, shared, or otherwise being given to people who are mentally ill or likely to be violent and enact shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2z565",
                    "author": "IndyPoker979",
                    "body": "I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nIn all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\n\nTo put it simply, no one is suddenly a race car driver just because they play Forza. Counter-Strike players do not automatically become good at paintball. This is not a good example of a healthy outlet for an individual at risk",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk1xi8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nThe point I made in the post details is that I don't think it would solve the mass shooter problem if the education system provided FPS games to fulfil the desire to shoot. I know so many people who play FPS games, and none of them are itching to fire into an innocent crowd. \n\n>In all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\r  \n\r\n\nI do support universal healthcare and improved mental healthcare.",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf2z565"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf31rvn",
                    "author": "Obsidian743",
                    "body": "I see no reason that if we pass laws that make guns et. al. difficult if not impossible to buy/own/use, then over time, the overall gun/ammo/accessory/culture supply will disappear. The only obstacle is passing those laws. I always hear arguments against the \"practicality\" of getting people to turn in or sell their guns. We don't need to do that. We simply strangle the supply and let time do the rest of the work.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3hmn9",
                    "author": "Navlgazer",
                    "body": "Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\nJust look at chicago .\n\nThe people who want to ban guns and think that 25-40 million \u201cassault weapons \u201c can be confiscated and stolen from their owners , are also the exact same  people who say that 15 million illegal immigrants is too many to round up and deport . \n\nSee the hypocrisy here ?\n\nAnd no one except liberals trust the govt .\nPeople with a brain know the govt is corrupt and bought and laid for by lobbyists and special interest groups and does as they are told by their donors.\n\nThe same govt that says they will protect you if you give up your right and means to protect yourself , are the same govt that can\u2019t secure a border . Yet tells you everyday that the border  is secure even though two million illegals waltz across every month , and bring tons of fentanyl with them . The same fentanyl that kills ten times more people than are murdered  with guns .\n\nAnd liberals don\u2019t care about people being killed .\nIf those school kids had been aborted babies instead , the liberals would have been praising the mothers for killing them before they were born . \nLiberals won\u2019t ever talk about how many people are killed in Chicago every weekend.\nBecause Chicago is and has been run by democrats for decades .\n\nMurder is against the law , every school is a \u201c gun free zone \u201c\n \nThe ONLY thing that stops a nut job crazy person with a gun , is a good guy with a gun.\n\nThe faster the good guy shows up with a gun , the less innocent people killed .",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zyxw",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\n>Just look at chicago .\n\nChicago is an embarrassment to left wingers everywhere, even in Australia.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf3hmn9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ijy9",
                    "author": "Sinfultitan_001",
                    "body": "We don't have a gun violence problem we have a **MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS** that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zks9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">We don't have a gun violence problem we have a MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.\n\nSo does Australia and a lot of other countries. Yet our gun violence rate is lower. Would you link that to our gun control laws or our universal healthcare?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf3ijy9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3xhxv",
                    "author": "buttholefluid",
                    "body": "I know what won\u2019t, more laws.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3z3v1",
                    "author": "CITYCATZCOUSIN",
                    "body": "Your first paragraph...!",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf43tu4",
                    "author": "themetahumancrusader",
                    "body": "As an Australian, I disagree with you on Australia having a similar right vs left culture war. Our \u201cculture war\u201d is very subdued in comparison to the US.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf44bub",
                    "author": "burnblue",
                    "body": "Pass the gun restrictions, let who needs to panic buy guns go ahead and panic buy before the law kicks in, then let people get over it and needing licenses or checks to get firearms will just be the normal law of the land the same way other things are.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf45s9x",
                    "author": "PrincessTrunks125",
                    "body": "1) make gun purchases more readily traceable \n\n\n2) the original purchaser of the gun is responsible for all crimes committed with it \n\nThat would be a huge start.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf46qms",
                    "author": "AdamicAtom",
                    "body": "America doesn't have a gun violence problem, or a racism problem or any other problem more important than this:  America has a culture problem.  And everyone everywhere knows it is at the core of all of this but will never admit that between classes and cultures in America, there will never be consensus or compromise.\n\nAnd the media and all the politicians know it and do everything they can to keep it this way.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf48p8f",
                    "author": "Mindless-Umpire7420",
                    "body": "America has criminal gangs and cartel from the south, Australia is a massive island continent. The reason Australia\u2019s gun control works is because it\u2019s an island nation, it\u2019s harder to smuggle guns through an ocean than the Mexican border",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4d3k9",
                    "author": "Green_and_black",
                    "body": "Gun violence is actually not that big a problem (it\u2019s Americans shooting Americans). The bigger problem is BOMB violence. This is worse because the seppos are exporting the violence.\nThe best way to prevent bomb violence is Balkanisation of the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf56ckw",
                    "author": "canwepleasejustnot",
                    "body": "The reality is that we have a much larger problem in this country, an existential one, that is resulting in everyone becoming more and more fractured and isolated, and violent. Taking legally obtained guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't really fix that problem and I genuinely believe that a large faction of Americans believe this deep down. Those calling for full bans tend to think that people are generally good and law abiding but it's just not true. If it comes down to it I'd rather be able to defend myself.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5atv1",
                    "author": "pilzn3r",
                    "body": "We have a mental health crisis in America.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeuuzf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I won't deny that but it's daft to think that you're the only country with a mental health crisis. Would you support universal health care to help tackle this crisis?",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5atv1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5g21c",
                    "author": "Psycheau",
                    "body": "If we take a more pragmatic military look at the USA they have Russia on one side. If Putin went completely mental and decided to invade the US and the military was spread to far across the globe for a quick response a land invasion on US soil would be a very problematic assault. When the people are armed a land assault could be easily thwarted by local militia holding their ground. Especially when lots of the public have automatic assault rifles it would be a simple matter to put together a small militia in each city to hold ground while the military get the logistics sorted. \n\nWhen people look at the gun situation in the USA they never seem to acknowledge the fact that they are in a very unique geological situation having a border with a potential enemy. There are other threats as well as Russia but it is the most obvious potential threat. Of course many people will know that Russia doesn't have the resources to attack the USA, but that does not mean they will never try, even in desperation.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeu5jb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If Russia (or any other hostile nation) were to obliterate the American military and put boots on the ground in the USA, you can bet that nukes will launch. That's probably a greater deterrent than having an armed populace.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5g21c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6qvfu",
                    "author": "StarMNF",
                    "body": "I've given this some thought, and I think I have a gun control measure that would eliminate most mass shootings in the U.S. without effecting most gun owners.\n\nThe idea is simple. To buy a gun, you need to get affidavits from 5 people who have known you well for at least a decade, who are willing to vouch that you can be trusted with the gun -- that you're of good character, mentally stable, and not likely to use the gun in an unlawful manner.\n\nYou can make the process pretty painless. You show up at Walmart with your 5 friends, you walk out with your gun. Heck, make gun buying a social activity.\n\nRednecks will still get their guns. People who are planning to stockpile ammunitions for the next Waco shootout with the feds will still be able to get their guns. The mafia will still get their guns.\n\nSo it won't completely stop gun violence in the country. However, it will be a major road block for the typical \"lone wolf shooter\" who does these mass shootings.\n\nPeople who know these shooters know they're mentally unstable and shouldn't have guns. In the case of the Covenant shooter, their parents knew they shouldn't own a gun. Even if they went to other friends who maybe don't know them so well, they would get a lot of questions about suddenly wanting to buy up enough guns for a small army.\n\nWhile most of these shooters have mental illnesses, and mental healthcare needs to be significantly improved, the reality is that a significant number of people with serious mental illnesses are never even diagnosed. Banning anyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun with result in even fewer people seeking treatment or being diagnosed, because most mental illnesses are diagnosed through voluntary therapy. \n\nThere are also cases where someone officially diagnosed with a mental illness has a justifiable need for a gun. For instance, a woman suffering PTSD from domestic violence might need a gun to protect themselves from their ex-partner who wants to kill them.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf9ngjr",
                    "author": "LigPortman69",
                    "body": "You\u2019re correct. A full 60% are in strong favor of the Second Amendment. It\u2019s not going anywhere. I doubt the military would enforce any \u201cdecree\u201d from above.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfarqj9",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable \n\nThe spike wouldn't prevent them from being able to surrender them later on; the grace period would no doubt account for this phenomenon.\n\n>Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it\n\nThis doesn't have much to do with our actual polices on gun control. It just shows our politicians aren't content with their citizens bloodshed at the hands of a few lunatics. It was still bigly unpopular for howard at the time, and political heads rolled over doing it.\n\n>Mental healthcare might help\n\nHeard this one quite a bit. Mental health issues aren't unique to the US, their access to guns is.\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings\n\nA violation of their first amendment\n\n>Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n\nA few things stops ours from being the all-in celebrity contest that america holds. We don't vote for our candidates directly, only their parties. And we have compulsory voting, which has the majority vote when they don't care about who they cast for. The more extreme you act(as is common in america) the less you score these voters.\n\n>Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot\n\nThis would not nearly be as effective as just copy pasting our gun control laws. License and lockup storage. Caliber restrictions. Self defense is not a legit reason to obtain and hold your license etc.\n\nAlso, Wendover did a pretty [decent look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM) at the relative effectiveness of our laws since their passing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfbljg6",
                    "author": "jajabingo2",
                    "body": "Australia does not have a raging left vs right battle anything like the USA \ud83d\ude02 \n\nAnd our proportional voting and donations oversight gives us a way different type of government here",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfefxs3",
                    "author": "TheDanimator",
                    "body": "We need to put more guns into the hands of good people so we can stop shootings.\nI dont believe this would solve everything, I do think it would help the problem though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfgy5nr",
                    "author": "D_Balgarus",
                    "body": "First off, gun violence statistics are inflated since they include suicides. \n\nSecond, most actual violence is gang violence in the big cities.\n\nIf we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk6z8d",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.\n\nHow isn't the USA already tough on crime if it has the world's highest incarnation rate?",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jfgy5nr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12cij50",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 772,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf3q0b5",
                "author": "MuaddibMcFly",
                "body": "I think the reason you believe that nothing can stop the gun violence problem in the US is that you're mistakenly thinking that the underlying/dominant problem is *guns* when it's actually the *violence.*   Do you know what the US's homicide rate would look like if every single gun homicide victim magically got up alive and well?  [It would *still* look bad compared to the rest of the anglosphere](https://imgur.com/a/VMfVqqB) (NZ not included, but it's not my infographic originally, sorry, Kiwis)\n\nWe don't have a *gun* problem in the United States, we have a *violence* problem, and *that* is solvable, if we simply look at the right thing.\n\nOne of the biggest predictors of crime, including violence, is wealth inequality.  Not necessarily in *absolute* terms, but compared to  one's neighbors.  This probably has evolutionary reasons, because if your neighbors have more resources than you, they're going to be able to outcompete you, their genes are more likely to propagate than yours, and, well, people who didn't do something about that inequality were less likely to have their genes passed on.\n\nAnd we've known about this [for literally decades](https://web.worldbank.org/archive/website01241/WEB/IMAGES/INEQUALI.PDF)\n\nThere are plenty of things to help close that gap.  \n\n* Some things would make it harder for the rich to exploit the system (e.g., eliminating tax breaks that only the rich can afford to exploit, making it so that they can't live on [untaxed] loans, which they pay off with more [untaxed] loans, which they pay off with more loans, which finally get paid off with [untaxed] capital gains upon their death, etc)\n* Some things would be actively helping people who need more help (food stamps, unemployment payments, welfare, etc)\n* Some things are making the wealthy carry more of the load than the poor do (e.g. a progressive tax system, *ideally* with a [Negative Income Tax bracket](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM))  Regarding the negative income tax bracket, we have a less effective version of that, the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been one of the most effective ways to get people out of poverty we've come up with to date.\n* Some things are making things that everybody technically has access to that help the poor more (foods, such as from the grocery store, often aren't taxed. Massachusetts allows clothes to be tax-free.  Capped tax rebates for renovations that lower your utility bills, etc)\n* *Getting out of the way* of people trying to help themselves. \n Business licensure (not clearly and directly related to *literal* health & safety) does nothing but make it harder for the poor to make their own money, not just as workers, but as owners & capitalists.  Zoning blocks homeowners from operating businesses out of their homes, making it cost *even more* money in order to make money.  Zoning also prevents property owners from building additional rooms/units on their property, that could be rented (at a lower cost) to people who aren't able to rent larger places (pensioners who lost their spouse, or simply want to downsize; college students; people who lost their jobs; people who would otherwise be homeless; etc).  \n* Cutting back on things that have the obvious and predictable result of hurting those who most need our help.  The Drug War disproportionately impacts poorer communities who (A) have more people partaking because they feel hopeless and (B) have more people who don't have any better job prospects than slinging dope, because of (B1) the drug war and/or (B2) because the government puts barriers in their way of *creating* those better job prospects for themselves (and their neighbors!)\n\n\nImplementing those things would be *freaking huge* benefit, would massively cut down on wealth inequality, which would drastically cut down on crime in general (including violence, homicide, etc). \n\nAll without even *touching* gun control (which, I might add, hurts those who are most unable to protect themselves, such as the 50kg coed who *can't* manually fight off a would-be rapist, but *could* shoot them).\n\nSo, yeah, there's a problem, and focusing on guns will *never* work, but *guns aren't actually the problem.*",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 6,
                "parent_id": "12cij50"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfk48mo",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">I think the reason you believe that nothing can stop the gun violence problem in the US is that you're mistakenly thinking that the underlying/dominant problem is guns when it's actually the violence.   Do you know what the US's homicide rate would look like if every single gun homicide victim magically got up alive and well?  [It would still look bad compared to the rest of the anglosphere](https://imgur.com/a/VMfVqqB) (NZ not included, but it's not my infographic originally, sorry, Kiwis)  \n>  \n>We don't have a gun problem in the United States, we have a violence problem, and that is solvable, if we simply look at the right thing.\n\n!delta\n\nGun violence in the USA is just a facet of a much bigger violent crime problem. Even successfully implementing gun control will only tackle the gun component of this violent crime problem, while leaving the overall problem untouched. This needs to be tackled through a social safety net and universal healthcare.",
                "date": "2023-04-09",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "jf3q0b5"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfk4bnh",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MuaddibMcFly ([49\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MuaddibMcFly)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jfk48mo"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1jzav",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kyf4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">To clarify, when you say \"I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA\" are you saying that such an initiative would never pass, or that it wouldn't be effective even if it hypothetically did?\n\nI am saying the latter. Say Joe Biden manages to pull off some masterful political puppeteering to enact gun control legislations similar to what John Howard did in 1996. It doesn't matter if it gets passed because past trends have shown us that the USA will experience panic buying of guns whenever there is a suspicion that gun control will be enacted.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1jzav"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kk0w",
                    "author": "pgold05",
                    "body": "If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run. \n\nThere is no reason to consider that spike to mean it's impossible, it barley matters in the larger scheme of things.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 39,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lcz8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If an effective gun control law actualy passes, the initial spike in gun ownership won't matter because ultimately the number of guns will go down in the long run.\n\nFirstly, while this did happen in Australia, will this phenomenon necessarily happen too in the USA? \n\nSecondly, how many lives will it cost? Imagine the cops trying to seize guns from an angry gun owner - it would either result in a few cops getting killed, the gun owners getting killed, or both.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kk0w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1kow3",
                    "author": "Squirt_memes",
                    "body": ">\tAny attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n\nI\u2019d say the gun control fails because it\u2019s very difficult to make a gun control bill that will pass all three branches of our government. Even just getting it past the representatives is quite difficult and the courts are unreceptive to violations of the second amendment. \n\n>\tMental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention,\n\nThat really depends what you mean by \u201cmass shooting\u201d. In your wiki list, I think there\u2019s 4 mass shooting so far this year that were unrelated to gang violence. And a couple dozen gang shooting that make it seem like mass shootings randomly happen all the time. \n\nGun violence is way bigger in America than most comparable countries, but it\u2019s really easy to let emotions cloud your brain. The vast majority of \u201cmass shootings\u201d pose no threat to normal people who don\u2019t live in a gang\u2019s turf. \n\n>\tSuppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI\u2019d say the media\u2019s obsession with coverage also makes it hard to know the true scale of the problem. It\u2019s crazy how many people I\u2019ll talk to who are TERRIFIED to send their kids to school. So I\u2019ll ask them \u201cdo you have any idea what the statistical chances are of a shooting involving your kid?\u201d Then they\u2019ll get pissed off and accuse me of hating children or something. \n\nThis whole issue is fed by a lack of objective information and a reliance on emotional arguments. \n\n>\tGiving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences\n\nYou need to go back a few decades if you want to claim violent video games increase violent activity without being made fun of. \n\n>\tThe USA\u2019s gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it\u2019s getting worse, if Wikipedia\u2019s list of mass shootings is to be believed.\n\nIt is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims. \n\nSo what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 65,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1lly5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It is tragic. Its also not well understood. The vast majority of the shooters on that list are black teenagers in active gangs. So are the majority of victims.  \n>  \n>So what\u2019s the goal? Do we ignore one and target the other? Because one policy won\u2019t fit a gang using illegal weapons to protect their drug turf AND a kid taking their parents gun to school for revenge.\r  \n\r\n\nOK, but either way, this just goes to prove my point that I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem. While I didn't put it in the post details, gun control legislation can't fix the gang crime problem either.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1kow3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1l307",
                    "author": "NelsonMeme",
                    "body": "> Firstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it).\n\nThis doesn\u2019t make sense.\n\nFirst, it isn\u2019t true. The U.S. developed the rudiments of its gun culture living in frontiers, where guns were commonly used as weapons in armed combat or to secure game. This culture further developed when we forcefully secured our independence. \n\nAustralia is independent, did not have to become so forcefully, and did not develop our same culture after independence.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2fp1v",
                    "author": "NegroniHater",
                    "body": "The Wild West is a myth. And no, gun culture started in America when the second right guaranteed to every American is keeping and bearing arms. Gun control was created to keep former slaves from having those rights, which for almost 100 years had never been touched by the government. \n\nFucking Ben Franklin said you shouldn\u2019t go for a walk without a gun, Thomas Jefferson said guns stop homicides, George Washington said every American [probably only meant men] should be armed and trained. It\u2019s always been part of American culture, and sure as fuck didn\u2019t start on an Italian movie set with Clint Eastwood, because you apparently think that\u2019s an accurate depiction of history.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf1l307"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1of4b",
                    "author": "ProLifePanda",
                    "body": ">As for solutions to the problem?\n\nSo just to start, there is no \"100% solution\" to gun violence, just like there's no \"100% solution\" to car crashes, knife stabbings, bar fights, etc. As long as something is allowed (like owning cars, guns, being able to drink, etc.) there will be some negative consequences. So there are no gun control laws or regulations that will reduce gun violence/deaths to 0 (or even close to it).\n\nBut a big improvement would be the implementation of pervasive \"red flag\" laws. Many of the school shootings you see are done by people who show red flags beforehand. The Oxford shooter was literally in the principal's office for being a suspected school shooter the day he did the shooting. The recent Tennessee shooter messaged her friends beforehand with concerning messages before the shooting. There are a lot of other examples, but that's the idea that if we can \"take the guns first, due process later\", we can stop some of the shootings by obviously troubled individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1sdva",
                    "author": "Purely_Theoretical",
                    "body": "You can't possibly red flag the Nashville shooter that sent messages just minutes beforehand. \n\nThe real problem with red flag laws is they brush aside due process.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jf1of4b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1r31m",
                    "author": "Rufus_Reddit",
                    "body": "\"Gun violence problem\" seems like newspeak - it's the sort of thing that politicians say when they want an emotional reaction but don't really want to say anything.   Can you describe what you mean by \"gun violence problem\" in more concrete terms?\nIs there some way to check whether the \"gun violence problem\" has been solved that isn't just \"I know it when I see it\"?  Suppose, for example, that there were no more shootings in school and no more breathless media coverage but homicide rates in inner cities continued to rise, would that be an improvement in the \"gun violence problem\" or not?\n\nDo you think that all of the gun control laws that were passed in the US over the last 40 years were credible attempts to address gun violence, or is it possible that at least some of them were political pandering instead?\n\n> ... The USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if Wikipedia's list of mass shootings is to be believed. ...\n\nAt the same time, the trend is toward the same or less gun ownership.  ( https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html ).   Do you think that gun availability has substantively changed in the US over the last 30 years?  Do you think that changes in \"mental health issues\" (more newspeak) and increased media coverage of gun violence explain all of the \"getting worse\" or not?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1s9cp",
                    "author": "pudding7",
                    "body": "I would assume that \"Gun violence problem\" means people being intentionally shot with a gun.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jf1r31m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1vtje",
                    "author": "oddball667",
                    "body": "USA is in a weird not so cold civil war, this will last generations and it will prevent any major issue from being resolved",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1xl7g",
                    "author": "kgxv",
                    "body": "The first step to solving the gun problem is to make lobbying illegal.  Corporations also shouldn\u2019t be able to donate to campaigns.\n\nOnce you take NRA money out of the equation, it becomes much easier to tackle.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1yc6v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Lobbying is huge in Australia. If we can have gun control despite that, so can the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf1xl7g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zj9y",
                    "author": "Thintegrator",
                    "body": "This is correct. We Americans have finally accepted that gun violence is an integral part of the American experience and that children dying from gunshot wounds in our schools is a small price to pay for the right to own weapons designed to kill. It is our core freedom. Anyone who thinks otherwise just stay the fuck out of our country. We got this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zo34",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Are you being sarcastic or sincere?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jf1zj9y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf1zwpg",
                    "author": "trash332",
                    "body": "We like our guns.  I would like to see more stringent background checks and maybe 30 day wait periods,  but only because every mass shooter has purchased their guns legally. Really, some people have to be more honest about their crazy ass family members.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf21ioj",
                    "author": "Sandy_hook_lemy",
                    "body": "Nonsense. Why is it always \"it can't work in the US\"? Has it been tried? Literally worked for every country so why not the US?\n\nThis is the same type of shit I see for why America cant have railway systems like Europeans. Try it first let's see. It cant be worse than it is now",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf228mw",
                    "author": "blade740",
                    "body": "I mostly agree with this take - the US and Australia are VERY different, namely the fact that the US has SIGNIFICANTLY higher levels of firearm proliferation than Australia ever did.  While Australia's ban/buybacks were able to make firearms relatively scarce, the amount of guns that would need to be taken off the street in the US to get us to roughly the same level is something like 90%.  It's just not feasible.  \n\nThat said, there is one point from your post in particular I want to debate:\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n\nI am not arguing for forcibly SUPPRESSING media coverage, but I do think that the media circus that surrounds these events is a HUGE factor in driving mass shootings due to the media contagion effect.  I think that some best practice guidelines for major media organizations to (hopefully) voluntarily follow could help reduce the level at which children are introduced and accustomed to the idea of \"mass shootings\" in the first place, similar to the way the press (voluntarily) covers suicides to minimize media contagion.  \n\nTo address your point, I don't believe that the kind of media coverage we have today is necessary (or even helpful) in measuring the \"full scale\" of the problem.  If anything the scale of the problem is blown vastly out of proportion by the outsized attention media gives to these events.  The scale of the problem should be measured by scientific studies and good data collection, not by public outrage created by clickbait-driven capitalist news organizations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf22xmj",
                    "author": "FearLeadsToAnger",
                    "body": "> Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nThis is a fundamental problem with the individualistic nature of 'the american dream' the lone ranger archetype, and the reinforcement of the view that everyone else is stupid and only I know what i'm doing.\n\nOur main new sources are hot on the themes of 'everyone else' being stupid, sneaky and selfish, so it's only fair for you to do it too - 'I gadda git ma own'.\n\nLike you say, mental healthcare isn't the solution, the whole of society needs to be reframed through a more compassionate lens before anything improves.\n\n> After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable\n\nMy point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun, which frankly is what a weapon of potential mass murder deserves anyway. Sure, people would still stash guns, but if all hell rains down you any time you get it out, you're never going to get it out and it becomes irrelevant anyway.\n\nThe whole shtick about protecting yourself from the government if it goes rogue is archaic, if the government turns on the people we're fucked either way, what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? Our strength is in our numbers, not our arms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2ov0s",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "> My point of disagreement is here, what you'd need to do is make it highly illegal to the point where it's not worth being anywhere near a gun\n\n....Like we did with drugs and alcohol?\n\n> what are AR15's going to do against modern electronic warfare? \n\nAsymmetric warfare can be a bitch. a fun poem about it: https://twitter.com/Huff4Congress/status/1623747713316581376",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jf22xmj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf233c7",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "[Stronger gun policies are associated with lower rates of firearm homicide, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2582989)\n\n[96% of Americans favor requiring background checks for all gun purchases](http://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx)\n\n[There are things experts agree will work that the public also supports](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html)\n\n> [After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0\u00b739 [95% CI 0\u00b723\u20130\u00b767]; p=0\u00b7001), ammunition background checks (0\u00b718 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b736]; p<0\u00b70001), and identification requirement for firearms (0\u00b716 [0\u00b709\u20130\u00b729]; p<0\u00b70001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10\u00b735 to 4\u00b746 deaths per 100\u2008000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1\u00b799 per 100\u2008000, and firearm identification to 1\u00b781 per 100\u2008000.](http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2901026-0/abstract)\n\nWe even know what we need to do to get it:\n\n[46% of gun owners in the NRA have contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[15% of gun owners not in the NRA have ever contacted a public official to express their opinion on gun policy](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/05/among-gun-owners-nra-members-have-a-unique-set-of-views-and-experiences/)\n\n[The NRA is powerful, but not because of its money](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/5/16430684/nra-congress-money-no).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf23ea6",
                    "author": "HomoSupremacy",
                    "body": ">As an Australian\n\nDon't care",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf252f2",
                    "author": "Thebrotherleftbehind",
                    "body": "As an American, and former Republican, I want to disclose, I want gun control. That being said, democrats are just as much to blame for the lack of gun control as republicans.\n\nOutside of domestic violence involving guns, I think the biggest problem we have with guns are the \u201cmass\u201d shootings. The problem is, they group all shootings in together. Suicide is also considered as homicide in gun stats. That is misleading and makes you seem untrustworthy. If two rival gangs get in a shootout, let\u2019s stop calling that a mass shooting. If someone writes a manifesto and shoots up a school, that to me is a mass shooting.\n\nYou don\u2019t solve gun violence with gangs by banning them, you tackle the socioeconomic issues that create the gangs in the first place.\n\nThe gun control conversation needs to be had with a MULTI pronged approach with clear definitions of what we are attributing to the violence and how to stop each thing. Yeah republicans offer thoughts and prayers instead of gun control legislation (sometimes going the opposite way in fact, Florida anyone?), and democrats use misleading and false information instead of legislation. We really need more parties in the USA.\n\nI see a lot of the same problems in both parties. Most of the elected officials on both sides say what their constituents want them to say, but what they actually do is really all about themselves and stayed in power. Yes dnc, you have the same problem as the gop, ie aoc. Aoc is all about aoc and will always be about aoc. But she\u2019s very social media savvy and knows what to say to her constituents. Look at how she speaks depending on the color of the skin of her audience. I\u2019ll admit, the dnc is slightly better, like with the Texas cold snap etc, but call me jaded, but to me I think they just have better marketing than the gop. I admit between the two though, I hate the gop much much more",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4lir3",
                    "author": "johnhtman",
                    "body": "Mass shootings are one of the least serious problems when it comes to guns or homicides. Going by the FBI numbers between 2000-2019 they averaged 53.1 people killed a year, with 2017 being the deadliest year with 138 people killed, 60 in the Vegas Shooting alone. That same year a total of 17,294 people were murdered, which means mass shootings during the worst year on record were responsible for 0.8% of total murders.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jf252f2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2550y",
                    "author": "Ok-Independent-5782",
                    "body": "American's will never give up their firearms.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf27z5d",
                    "author": "yelkca",
                    "body": "For those of us who live here, giving up isn't really an option. But thanks for your input",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ywsa",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Look, I'm getting a lot of commenters whose points boil down to \"*[ackshually, it's all a gang problem](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf1kow3?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\" or \"*[we need guns to defend ourselves](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf2fhr9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\", or \"*[look at Chicago's problems](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/jf3hmn9?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3)*\". How can I rebut them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf27z5d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf29m7m",
                    "author": "El_Burrito_Grande",
                    "body": "There's a solution to mass shootings, at least. It's in your post. The people who do it get attention. The media facilitates that. There were a lot of guns before mass shootings became such a big trend. THE reason there are so many school shootings/mass shootings is the rise of the sensationalistic 24 hour news cycle/social media. It's a copycat thing/trend. If the media squelched it and didn't talk about the shooters it would die down. It's THE solution. I don't see that happening though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2e3af",
                    "author": "Character_Ad_7058",
                    "body": "The main reason there cannot be *ANY* effective control on guns in the US is the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and the broad court precedents in interpreting it.) In the US, for example, if we tried such a buyback program we would react as you indicated, in terms of selling record amounts of new guns and ammunition. But, an additional reaction (that makes such a program a non-starter) is that funding for it would never be approved. Even if, my some miracle, it did, it would be extremely vulnerable to a court challenge and would eventually be denied.\n\nFew other nations have such a supreme, blanket right to guns as we have in the US. And, we\u2019re essentially stuck with it because the only option would be to further amend the constitution, which is a non-starter as it requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of State Legislatures.) Such a majority in either State or Federal legislatures just isn\u2019t conceivable in the foreseeable future.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2euoo",
                    "author": "NuJoisi",
                    "body": "There's no way for you to get an actual reply or information from Reddit, the real information is banned.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f2pz",
                    "author": "ShutYourDumbUglyFace",
                    "body": "I don't have any idea what the solution is to our problem (I mean, I think it's making it harder to buy a gun - but I have no idea how we get there), but I will say that I don't think it stems from the revolution. I think it's more related to the Wild West and the glorification of the perceived violence and lawlessness - and fierce independence - that pervaded that era. The irony is that most towns at that time, in the west, [were gun-free](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gun-control-old-west-180968013/) and you had to leave your firearm with the sheriff. \n\nThis narrative ties in with the (false) narrative that guns increase safety. In the Wild West, there were various \"enemies\" that you had to contend with - thieves and wild animals, and of course, pissed off native Americans. Your gun kept you safe. Nowadays, people still believe that having a gun in their home keeps them safe - despite statistics to the contrary. Anecdotal evidence will always reign supreme over statistical data for these people. One 70-year-old man who fends off a home invasion will always carry more weight than statistics showing that a gun in the home increases the likelihood of (successful) [suicide](https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/handgun-ownership-associated-with-much-higher-suicide-risk.html) by 8x for men and 35x for women.\n\nFurther, I think our politicians and talking heads (and those everywhere, honestly) are able to tap into a profound fear that Americans have about all kinds of things - home invasions, brown people coming to take jobs, etc. Fear is the underlying motivator for humans, so tapping into that produces incredible results. And there are sects that use government interference like at Waco and Ruby Ridge to stoke fear of government overreach - and how you need to have a gun to protect yourself from that (although, as I've noted in the past, the US government has an arsenal that no quantity AR-15's is going to rival).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f4wr",
                    "author": "THSea_Aye111",
                    "body": "Gin buy back programs do work in the US, even in conservative areas: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2022/08/30/gun-buybacks-are-popular-but-are-they-effective",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2olr4",
                    "author": "Permit_Current",
                    "body": "The link you cited seems to say the opposite? That a few hundred generally older, and less functional guns are turned in, doesn't seem to me to scream great success in a county with hundreds of millions?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "jf2f4wr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2hjw7",
                    "author": "src88",
                    "body": "Sorry but there are over 2 million defensive gun incidents a year where good people save themselves. Less guns would have resulted in more death. Considering most of our gun stats come from gang violence (mainly in the biggest cities) and suicide. The argument has been and always will be weak. \n\nAlso we ain't Australia with covid internment camps because we are armed and the government knows it's not in complete control. Hence, why they want to disarm the public using the bodies of children. Absolute power corrupts. Our founding fathers knew it.\n\nJust took a look at the top comments and all their sources are left wing sites. Hmmm",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2rcy0",
                    "author": "Zncon",
                    "body": ">Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n\nWith more study, this is proving to be less true then we thought for a long time. Mass shootings outside of gang violence tend to be a complicated form of suicide.\n\nWe know that suicides can be somewhat contagious and driven by the news media, which can also connect the increase shootings we see as a result of that coverage.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2wujm",
                    "author": "RevolutionaryBug8528",
                    "body": "It's not even a problem with the proper American mindset. Any shortfall in future consumer laborers resulting from mass shootings (improbable that it would amount to anything significant) can be made up for with the proper immigration and \"healthcare\" policies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2yox7",
                    "author": "SliptheSkid",
                    "body": "A solution does exist, but I think it's too extreme / complex to be  actually adopted. At its core gun reform and fixing gun violence requires a dramatic shift in culture away from pro-gun behaviour. This includes forking over rights to own a gun easily, because as long as there are so many guns and so many people own them, we cannot prevent them from being resold, shared, or otherwise being given to people who are mentally ill or likely to be violent and enact shootings.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2z565",
                    "author": "IndyPoker979",
                    "body": "I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nIn all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\n\nTo put it simply, no one is suddenly a race car driver just because they play Forza. Counter-Strike players do not automatically become good at paintball. This is not a good example of a healthy outlet for an individual at risk",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk1xi8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I just need to point out about your last point. I'm sure it's already been covered, but first-person shooters do not increase or decrease the likelihood of gun violence. There was a big push in the 80s and '90s by a guy by the name of Jack Thompson who decided that violent video games and movies were responsible for the ills of society. Since then, this argument has been destroyed on every single logical front. There is no correlation between people who play these games and gun violence. There are much more closer correlations that you could point to instead. However, the idea that you could put these types of games in a school to give an outlet is not effective.\n\nThe point I made in the post details is that I don't think it would solve the mass shooter problem if the education system provided FPS games to fulfil the desire to shoot. I know so many people who play FPS games, and none of them are itching to fire into an innocent crowd. \n\n>In all the situations in which gun violence at schools has occurred, none of them have been simply because they couldn't play a video game. That isn't the common factor. Instead of bullying and mental health and mental crisis or rejection or emotional immaturity, making someone unable to handle a situation? Those are the factors that lead to violence in schools.\r  \n\r\n\nI do support universal healthcare and improved mental healthcare.",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf2z565"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf31rvn",
                    "author": "Obsidian743",
                    "body": "I see no reason that if we pass laws that make guns et. al. difficult if not impossible to buy/own/use, then over time, the overall gun/ammo/accessory/culture supply will disappear. The only obstacle is passing those laws. I always hear arguments against the \"practicality\" of getting people to turn in or sell their guns. We don't need to do that. We simply strangle the supply and let time do the rest of the work.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3hmn9",
                    "author": "Navlgazer",
                    "body": "Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\nJust look at chicago .\n\nThe people who want to ban guns and think that 25-40 million \u201cassault weapons \u201c can be confiscated and stolen from their owners , are also the exact same  people who say that 15 million illegal immigrants is too many to round up and deport . \n\nSee the hypocrisy here ?\n\nAnd no one except liberals trust the govt .\nPeople with a brain know the govt is corrupt and bought and laid for by lobbyists and special interest groups and does as they are told by their donors.\n\nThe same govt that says they will protect you if you give up your right and means to protect yourself , are the same govt that can\u2019t secure a border . Yet tells you everyday that the border  is secure even though two million illegals waltz across every month , and bring tons of fentanyl with them . The same fentanyl that kills ten times more people than are murdered  with guns .\n\nAnd liberals don\u2019t care about people being killed .\nIf those school kids had been aborted babies instead , the liberals would have been praising the mothers for killing them before they were born . \nLiberals won\u2019t ever talk about how many people are killed in Chicago every weekend.\nBecause Chicago is and has been run by democrats for decades .\n\nMurder is against the law , every school is a \u201c gun free zone \u201c\n \nThe ONLY thing that stops a nut job crazy person with a gun , is a good guy with a gun.\n\nThe faster the good guy shows up with a gun , the less innocent people killed .",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zyxw",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Gun control won\u2019t and doesn\u2019t work .\n\n>Just look at chicago .\n\nChicago is an embarrassment to left wingers everywhere, even in Australia.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf3hmn9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3ijy9",
                    "author": "Sinfultitan_001",
                    "body": "We don't have a gun violence problem we have a **MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS** that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3zks9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">We don't have a gun violence problem we have a MASSIVE MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS that no one wants to talk about because that rug would pull out from under too many feet.\n\nSo does Australia and a lot of other countries. Yet our gun violence rate is lower. Would you link that to our gun control laws or our universal healthcare?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf3ijy9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3xhxv",
                    "author": "buttholefluid",
                    "body": "I know what won\u2019t, more laws.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3z3v1",
                    "author": "CITYCATZCOUSIN",
                    "body": "Your first paragraph...!",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf43tu4",
                    "author": "themetahumancrusader",
                    "body": "As an Australian, I disagree with you on Australia having a similar right vs left culture war. Our \u201cculture war\u201d is very subdued in comparison to the US.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf44bub",
                    "author": "burnblue",
                    "body": "Pass the gun restrictions, let who needs to panic buy guns go ahead and panic buy before the law kicks in, then let people get over it and needing licenses or checks to get firearms will just be the normal law of the land the same way other things are.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf45s9x",
                    "author": "PrincessTrunks125",
                    "body": "1) make gun purchases more readily traceable \n\n\n2) the original purchaser of the gun is responsible for all crimes committed with it \n\nThat would be a huge start.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf46qms",
                    "author": "AdamicAtom",
                    "body": "America doesn't have a gun violence problem, or a racism problem or any other problem more important than this:  America has a culture problem.  And everyone everywhere knows it is at the core of all of this but will never admit that between classes and cultures in America, there will never be consensus or compromise.\n\nAnd the media and all the politicians know it and do everything they can to keep it this way.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf48p8f",
                    "author": "Mindless-Umpire7420",
                    "body": "America has criminal gangs and cartel from the south, Australia is a massive island continent. The reason Australia\u2019s gun control works is because it\u2019s an island nation, it\u2019s harder to smuggle guns through an ocean than the Mexican border",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4d3k9",
                    "author": "Green_and_black",
                    "body": "Gun violence is actually not that big a problem (it\u2019s Americans shooting Americans). The bigger problem is BOMB violence. This is worse because the seppos are exporting the violence.\nThe best way to prevent bomb violence is Balkanisation of the USA.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf56ckw",
                    "author": "canwepleasejustnot",
                    "body": "The reality is that we have a much larger problem in this country, an existential one, that is resulting in everyone becoming more and more fractured and isolated, and violent. Taking legally obtained guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens won't really fix that problem and I genuinely believe that a large faction of Americans believe this deep down. Those calling for full bans tend to think that people are generally good and law abiding but it's just not true. If it comes down to it I'd rather be able to defend myself.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5atv1",
                    "author": "pilzn3r",
                    "body": "We have a mental health crisis in America.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeuuzf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I won't deny that but it's daft to think that you're the only country with a mental health crisis. Would you support universal health care to help tackle this crisis?",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5atv1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf5g21c",
                    "author": "Psycheau",
                    "body": "If we take a more pragmatic military look at the USA they have Russia on one side. If Putin went completely mental and decided to invade the US and the military was spread to far across the globe for a quick response a land invasion on US soil would be a very problematic assault. When the people are armed a land assault could be easily thwarted by local militia holding their ground. Especially when lots of the public have automatic assault rifles it would be a simple matter to put together a small militia in each city to hold ground while the military get the logistics sorted. \n\nWhen people look at the gun situation in the USA they never seem to acknowledge the fact that they are in a very unique geological situation having a border with a potential enemy. There are other threats as well as Russia but it is the most obvious potential threat. Of course many people will know that Russia doesn't have the resources to attack the USA, but that does not mean they will never try, even in desperation.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfeu5jb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If Russia (or any other hostile nation) were to obliterate the American military and put boots on the ground in the USA, you can bet that nukes will launch. That's probably a greater deterrent than having an armed populace.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf5g21c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6qvfu",
                    "author": "StarMNF",
                    "body": "I've given this some thought, and I think I have a gun control measure that would eliminate most mass shootings in the U.S. without effecting most gun owners.\n\nThe idea is simple. To buy a gun, you need to get affidavits from 5 people who have known you well for at least a decade, who are willing to vouch that you can be trusted with the gun -- that you're of good character, mentally stable, and not likely to use the gun in an unlawful manner.\n\nYou can make the process pretty painless. You show up at Walmart with your 5 friends, you walk out with your gun. Heck, make gun buying a social activity.\n\nRednecks will still get their guns. People who are planning to stockpile ammunitions for the next Waco shootout with the feds will still be able to get their guns. The mafia will still get their guns.\n\nSo it won't completely stop gun violence in the country. However, it will be a major road block for the typical \"lone wolf shooter\" who does these mass shootings.\n\nPeople who know these shooters know they're mentally unstable and shouldn't have guns. In the case of the Covenant shooter, their parents knew they shouldn't own a gun. Even if they went to other friends who maybe don't know them so well, they would get a lot of questions about suddenly wanting to buy up enough guns for a small army.\n\nWhile most of these shooters have mental illnesses, and mental healthcare needs to be significantly improved, the reality is that a significant number of people with serious mental illnesses are never even diagnosed. Banning anyone diagnosed with a mental illness from owning a gun with result in even fewer people seeking treatment or being diagnosed, because most mental illnesses are diagnosed through voluntary therapy. \n\nThere are also cases where someone officially diagnosed with a mental illness has a justifiable need for a gun. For instance, a woman suffering PTSD from domestic violence might need a gun to protect themselves from their ex-partner who wants to kill them.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf9ngjr",
                    "author": "LigPortman69",
                    "body": "You\u2019re correct. A full 60% are in strong favor of the Second Amendment. It\u2019s not going anywhere. I doubt the military would enforce any \u201cdecree\u201d from above.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfarqj9",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable \n\nThe spike wouldn't prevent them from being able to surrender them later on; the grace period would no doubt account for this phenomenon.\n\n>Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it\n\nThis doesn't have much to do with our actual polices on gun control. It just shows our politicians aren't content with their citizens bloodshed at the hands of a few lunatics. It was still bigly unpopular for howard at the time, and political heads rolled over doing it.\n\n>Mental healthcare might help\n\nHeard this one quite a bit. Mental health issues aren't unique to the US, their access to guns is.\n\n>Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings\n\nA violation of their first amendment\n\n>Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n\nA few things stops ours from being the all-in celebrity contest that america holds. We don't vote for our candidates directly, only their parties. And we have compulsory voting, which has the majority vote when they don't care about who they cast for. The more extreme you act(as is common in america) the less you score these voters.\n\n>Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot\n\nThis would not nearly be as effective as just copy pasting our gun control laws. License and lockup storage. Caliber restrictions. Self defense is not a legit reason to obtain and hold your license etc.\n\nAlso, Wendover did a pretty [decent look](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0aGGOK4kAM) at the relative effectiveness of our laws since their passing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfbljg6",
                    "author": "jajabingo2",
                    "body": "Australia does not have a raging left vs right battle anything like the USA \ud83d\ude02 \n\nAnd our proportional voting and donations oversight gives us a way different type of government here",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfefxs3",
                    "author": "TheDanimator",
                    "body": "We need to put more guns into the hands of good people so we can stop shootings.\nI dont believe this would solve everything, I do think it would help the problem though.",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cij50",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the news of yet another mass shooting - namely the [2023 Covenant School shooting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Covenant_School_shooting).\n\nFirstly, I need to mention that the USA's gun violence problem provides leverage to monarchists here in Australia. The fact that the USA developed a gun culture after breaking free from the British crown is something I need to answer for as an Australian republican (and I have no good answer for it). [See here for an example](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/).\n\nSecondly, Australia's success in tackling gun violence [is frequently mentioned as an example for the USA to follow](https://www.businessinsider.com/does-gun-control-work-2018-2). However, I see some key differences which are why I don't think our model will work in the USA:\n\n* After the Port Arthur Massacre, which inspired tougher gun control, the government ran a gun buyback scheme - and the government played its cards very well as the buyback went relatively smoothly. In contrast, in the USA, any suspicion that the government might tighten gun control inspires a spike in buying guns in case they become unavailable - even pro-Democrat sources like CNN [say that former President Barack Obama was the \"greatest gun salesman in America\"](https://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales).\n* Also regarding the Port Arthur Massacre - the prime minister who toughened gun control was right-wing, and the left-wing parties were also on board with it, meaning that gun control opponents had no major party championing their cause. In contrast, the Republican Party in the USA doesn't pass up the opportunity to cater to gun control opponents for their votes.\n\nAs for solutions to the problem? I can't think of any.\n\n* Any attempt at gun control backfires because people panic buy guns.\n* Mental healthcare might help, but since a lot of mass shootings are by people who crave attention, I can't think of ways to make attention-hungry people stop being attention-hungry.\n* Suppressing media coverage of mass shootings only makes it impossible to know the full scale of the problem.\n* Also, I don't think the raging right vs. left culture war is to blame for the USA's gun violence problem because we have that same problem too in Australia.\n* Giving kids an outlet for the desire to shoot (e.g. having an official policy of putting first-person-shooter games on school computers) has other negative consequences (e.g. lower productivity).\n\nThe USA's gun violence problem is tragic - and it seems like it's getting worse, if [Wikipedia's list of mass shootings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States) is to be believed.\n\n**Edit:** Some people claim that the USA's gun violence problem is fuelled by fact that it's a major weapons producer. But so are Russia, Germany, the UK, France and Israel - and all have lower gun violence rates. Plus, countries like Venezuela have even higher gun violence rates despite not being major weapons producers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 772,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As an Australian, I don't think our response to gun violence will work in the USA. In fact, I see no realistic way to tackle the USA's gun violence problem.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cij50/cmv_as_an_australian_i_dont_think_our_response_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfgy5nr",
                    "author": "D_Balgarus",
                    "body": "First off, gun violence statistics are inflated since they include suicides. \n\nSecond, most actual violence is gang violence in the big cities.\n\nIf we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-08",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cij50"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfk6z8d",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If we want to tackle gun violence then we need to annihilate gangs in the cities. That would require people be tough on crime and bring back the stigma of having a criminal record. Sadly people in the problematic areas don\u2019t have the backbone to do this.\n\nHow isn't the USA already tough on crime if it has the world's highest incarnation rate?",
                    "date": "2023-04-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jfgy5nr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12cndht",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 71,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf2ec5k",
                "author": "DuhChappers",
                "body": "The main problem with this is that while WFH has definitively reduced the number of workers in the office, there are relatively few buildings that are actually completely empty. Since most buildings house a number of companies and most companies are retaining at least partial in office requirements, it's hard to pick out many individual buildings that would work for this program without kicking workers out. If we had some sort of program to consolidate 2 half empty office buildings into one full office building, this would be more feasible, but governments generally do not have that level of control over where businesses rent space.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 31,
                "parent_id": "12cndht"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf2kezk",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "!delta for the fact that truly empty buildings are limited. I guess I would think that local governments could rezone blocks to make buildings mixed use or something, but that won't completely address the issue.",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 11,
                "parent_id": "jf2ec5k"
            },
            {
                "id": "jf2kgi7",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers ([37\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DuhChappers)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-05",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jf2kezk"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf26604",
                    "author": "onetwo3four5",
                    "body": "I'm too lazy to look up the statistics, but housing availability isn't really limited by the existence of physical homes. There are enough vacant houses and apartments in the US to provide a home for every homeless or housing insecure person. There just isn't the political will and funding to pay for it. I don't think the existence of vacant office space matters here. If we have the will and/or funding to pay to house people, the houses already exist, we don't need to retrofit offices to do it.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf26uch",
                    "author": "monty845",
                    "body": "Sure, but shipping off homeless people from Los Angeles, to rural states with cheap housing, without a plan for how those people are going to support themselves in the new location, isn't really a solution.\n\nThe housing crisis in the US is that there aren't enough houses in the places with high demand, which covers the entire commuting distances from a number of major cities.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "jf26604"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf26ak8",
                    "author": "shadowbca",
                    "body": "The biggest issue isn't so much that it's not happening but more so that when buildings are retrofitted they aren't made into affordable housing but instead into expensive housing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf28cyv",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "I haven't even seen that happening at any scale where I am. But even if it was made into expensive housing -- if supply exceeds demand, then all housing will get less expensive.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jf26ak8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2b9ca",
                    "author": "VVillyD",
                    "body": "The problem with turning office buildings into housing is that it's often more expensive than building an entire new apartment complex from the ground up. Office buildings are simply not built in a way which makes them easily changed into housing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2emb6",
                    "author": "finderfolk",
                    "body": "There's a few reasons that this is unlikely to lead to an increase in *affordable* housing.\n\n*First Problem*\n\n Imagine you own the title to 'Tower X' which used to house a law firm (and maybe one or two subtenants). Law firm decides to bail and goes partially WeWork or something. The previous commercial lease was probably quite long, and it's likely that significant works need to be done (\"shell and core\") to bring the building up to scratch. \n\nFrom a commercial perspective, you are much more likely to pre-let the property to a high end property manager (or another similar business) than you are to a mid-range company. Why? Because (i) you don't want to be dealing with too many parties and (ii) they can afford it. You want someone who's willing to nearly take a 'lease of whole'. \n\n*Second Problem*\n\nLocation. Most of the convertible office space will be central, so the price per square meter will be very high. As a freeholder you just aren't going to generate a good return (to the point where you'd be better off just selling the land).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2kpwz",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">take a 'lease of whole'.\n\nThat demand doesn't exist, though. Companies are finding across the board they don't need the level of office space they did pre-COVID. \n\n>you just aren't going to generate a good return (to the point where you'd be better off just selling the land).\n\nTo who and for what purpose? The demand for office space in inner cities is dropping not increasing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jf2emb6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2f7av",
                    "author": "NotaMaiTai",
                    "body": ">Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.\n\nWith many modern office buildings, the construction of the entire building is so different that it would in many cases he easier to destroy the existing building and start over. Depending on the group performing the assessment I've seen between 20-35% of office buildings in major cities being suitable for conversion.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2kyz5",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Is it an opportunity at all, though? \n\nThe reason salaries are high in high cost of living areas is because the cost of living is high. \n\nI see exactly zero reason why companies would continue to pay high salaries to people living in low CoL areas... they wouldn't have to. \n\nAnd in the mean time, people end up living in less desirable areas with the same level of affordability as the desirable ones. Would this actually happen to a sufficiently significant degree? I think not. \n\nBTW, it's evident they don't have to, or outsourcing wouldn't be a thing given the extra costs of remote management. \n\nAll this would do is spread the misery farther.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2vmp3",
                    "author": "rickitikkitavi",
                    "body": "What WFH showed us is that people no longer need to live in cities to work and that we no longer need to argue over upzoning urban neighborhoods",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2x025",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "So, is your proposal to force people to live in places they don't want to live?   \n\n\nYes, people who can afford to purchase homes are moving out of cities. But that is not everyone who lives in a city, nor is it everyone who wants to live in one.   \n\n\nSolutions to social problems actually have to have some level of respect for the people of society, else they aren't really solutions.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf2vmp3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf2zgq6",
                    "author": "MoSChuin",
                    "body": "Your theory ignores a massive point. Most homelessness is because of chemical addiction and/or mental illness. \n\nEven if you did pay to put your ambitious plan into work, it's destined to fail, and hurt more people. Addiction is a progressive disease, so if you make it easier, it inflames the already overinflated ego and make it easier for them to take more and more drugs. It's called 'Loving them to Death'. \n\nCrime spikes where this happens too. People desperate to get their next fix do not think twice about stealing to make it happen. It's actually a symptom of their disease. \n\nThe hardest part to understand is that people caught in addiction won't change their lives until they are sick and tired of themselves. Most people think, you're homeless, isn't that enough to start changing? And for some, that's a resounding no. Completely inexplicable, but until their hearts are open to change, it progressively gets worse and worse. \n\nI was homeless for a very brief time, and getting free converted housing would've been the worst possible thing. It would've hurt me more than helped me. It would've kept me in my disease, and wouldn't have opened my heart to change.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf35f50",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">Most homelessness is because of chemical addiction and/or mental illness.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nYou're mistaken.\n\nThe data from the U.S. Conference of Mayors and other researchers shows that the primary causes of homelessness, in order, are:\n\n1. Stagnant wages\n2. Unemployment\n3. Lack of affordable housing\n4. Lack of affordable healthcare / healthcare related bankruptcy\n5. General poverty\n6. Lack of mental health and addiction treatment services\n7. Domestic violence (this is a much higher cause of homelessness for women specifically)\n8. Family conflict\n9. Systemic failures",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jf2zgq6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf32lg8",
                    "author": "Hack874",
                    "body": "It is too prohibitively expensive to transform massive office buildings into segmented living quarters and have it be a net-positive economically. It might technically increase housing availability, but not in an affordable way.\n\nAn excerpt from [this article](https://slate.com/business/2022/12/office-housing-conversion-downtown-twitter-beds.html) gives a good example:\n\n>Finally, converting buildings to residential use is expensive. Couple that with the fact that office rents are higher per square foot than residential rents are, and you see why developers aren\u2019t champing at the bit to get new projects underway. Van Nieuwerburgh gave me an example from San Francisco, where Juul\u2019s old headquarters\u2014down the block from Twitter\u2019s improvised dormitory\u2014is for sale for $150 million. That\u2019s a lot less than the $397 million the embattled nicotine vape company paid for it in 2019. But at $400 a square foot to buy and another $400 a square foot to renovate, he said, **the conversion would still produce a building with rents too high even for San Francisco.** In other words, offices may be down, but they\u2019ll have to fall a lot further before adaptive reuse becomes a bargain.\n\nand\n\n>It takes almost as much money to convert an old building to residential as it does to build a new one from scratch. No one will do it unless the price is right.\n\nThe fact that only a small fraction of the office buildings are *totally* empty and ready for conversion is arguably an even bigger obstacle.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf3izhc",
                    "author": "timmy_throw",
                    "body": "There is a main problem with this : office buildings aren't empty, mainly because most companies are pushing for return to office. You can blame office culture, think it's bullshit or true, it doesn't really matter for this argument.\n\nEven in a country with strong worker rights, companies mainly offer hybrid schedules anyway.\n\nWith that said there's an additional hurdle to your plan to retrofit buildings : the government needs to incentivize WFH, simply. Breaking that office culture would be needed to get truly empty buildings thanks to WFH, and for that companies need incentives, which can't come only from the worker side (as we can witness with companies pushing RTO).",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf40n7k",
                    "author": "oldrocketscientist",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t understand the financial model you\u2019re proposing.  Who pays?",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf48ghx",
                    "author": "HybridVigor",
                    "body": ">unique\n\nThere will be other pandemics. H5N1 [has been spreading](https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/animal-disease-information/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-2022/2022-hpai-wild-birds) for the past two years, jumping to other mammals like sea lions and even a dog (who ate a Canadian goose). Eight billion people traveling extensively and living mostly in high density population centers makes future pandemics a certainty.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf4wtdq",
                    "author": "LtPowers",
                    "body": "This was already happening before the pandemic in my city.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6b8mv",
                    "author": "Coooo8",
                    "body": "One big issue is that the WFH thing is \"supposed to\" be temporary. I actually agree with you that this would be a great opportunity, and that working from home is overall a smarter option in jobs that make it plausible, but I just don't see this change becoming permanent.\n\nEvery WFH job my roommate or I have worked has had some kind of onsite requirement. Sometimes it was \"come in 2x a week\" or \"come in to pick up this computer equipment for your home office\". Even if the buildings aren't being used the same way, they're still being occupied and used as storage, at the very least.\n\nOne company I worked for even went by metrics. Only the best of the best could WFH full time. The rest of us had to come in 3x a week and could work from home twice. It was supremely stupid, but our manager took great and obvious joy in lording that over us. I have a hard time believing that my GEICO supervisor, cartoonishly evil as she was, is the worst office manager in the country. I have a feeling this shit is happening all over, which means no reform is going to happen until we reform office culture permanently.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf6i1nt",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">Every WFH job my roommate or I have worked has had some kind of onsite requirement.\n\nIn my industry (techology consulting) on-sites are only for when we need to be hands-on with physical equipment. This was true for \\~70% of our clients before COVID, but a few did want people to be physically in the building. Post-COVID everyone knows that it's better to hire more engineers than to pay for planes, hotels and meals.\n\nThe only people traveling now are people in leadership roles who have to interface with the client, business development types, and people on the creative side doing collaborative work.  \n\n\nAnd I really can't see that changing. The cost savings are just too real. It also broadened our recruiting footprint to a much larger part of the country, since people no longer need to live within easy driving distance of a major airport.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jf6b8mv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf7meo1",
                    "author": "sbennett21",
                    "body": "I suspect zoning is a big problem here, depending on the city and area. (Well, I think it's a huge problem with the housing shortage in general, but specifically for this, too.)",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jf8pnou",
                    "author": "SometimesRight10",
                    "body": "Not sure what problem you are trying  to solve. Is it a lack of housing, or a inability of people to afford the *available* housing? If affordability is the problem, I would prefer direct cash payments to people who cannot afford the housing. I don't believe there is a shortage of housing. If there is demand, the housing will get built, it's just a question of price.\n\nI don't want the government otherwise interfering with the market. They usually create more problems than than they solve.",
                    "date": "2023-04-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12cndht",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Office buildings are empty. While it would be expensive to retrofit office towers into housing, it is possible. There's just a significant up-front cost.   \n\n\nHowever, with numerous businesses not having workers in the office anymore, numerous towers in large cities are almost fully void of people, even if much of the space may still be rented.   \n\n\nMost major cities are short of affordable housing, leading to considerable increases in housing costs. [Chicago](https://www.chicagotribune.com/real-estate/ct-re-affordable-housing-in-chicago-0409-20210412-tzcbnjsslbdoxmnwdo27h7lehi-story.html) is shy 120,000 units of needed housing, for example.   \n\n\nHowever, the movement to retrofit office buildings into apartments is moving slowly, and only creating at best a few thousand units in most places.   \n\n\nBecause cities are not taking this opportunity to drive the creation of significant housing recreation, these buildings are going to sit empty and dilapidated through disuse rather than be used to solve the immediate housing crisis -- a solution that would be better for downtown businesses, for residents, and for the city as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-05",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The WFH movement post-COVID presents a unique historic opportunity to address housing availability and cost in US cities that will be missed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12cndht/cmv_the_wfh_movement_postcovid_presents_a_unique/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfcp4om",
                    "author": "KSDFKASSRKJRAJKFNDFK",
                    "body": "Why do you keep thinking of ways to fit millions into cities?\n\nWhy not WFH-ers to live in some rural bum fuck nowhere to spread the people out?",
                    "date": "2023-04-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12cndht"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12hcmel",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                "date": "2023-04-10",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfobnck",
                "author": "lascivious_boasts",
                "body": "Every student union I've ever observed has its direction and policies either voted for at a general meeting, or has policy determined by representatives who are elected by a general election. \n\nBy their nature, a body which controls finances or provision of services must make some political decisions. The elected representatives can be held accountable by further elections and recall. \n\nSo if there was a general misrepresentation of students' views, alternative people would be elected and the political direction of a union would change.",
                "date": "2023-04-10",
                "score": 34,
                "parent_id": "12hcmel"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfobtp9",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "Good point, thank you :) I guess, if the body is elected (I guess it usually is) then the union is created by the students themselves. It is possible that many students are simply not interested in the union and don't contribute to reforming it - or maybe they are afraid of being shamed for not subscribing to the current ideology. So yes, although I still don't think SUs represent students in general, I can now say that they probably represent students who have an interest in developing the union (whatever their background). \n\n\u0394",
                "date": "2023-04-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jfobnck"
            },
            {
                "id": "jfoc48m",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lascivious_boasts ([11\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lascivious_boasts)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-10",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jfobtp9"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfobe6m",
                    "author": "Mediocre-Ad-2548",
                    "body": "Could you define what you mean by \"very left-leaning politically correct liberal agenda?\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfocob9",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "It a bit of a long definition. But to give some policy examples which might point to a definition - fixation on sexual issues, preoccupation with transgender issues, gender issues, enforcing \"safe spaces\", attempting to cancel conservative speakers sometimes, anti-capitalist (kind of), lots of time focused on climate change issues.\n\nI'm not saying I agree or disagree with the above policies here.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": -12,
                    "parent_id": "jfobe6m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfocc5m",
                    "author": "Normal-Flower4437",
                    "body": "Would you be able to clarify whether you are talking about general student unions, a.k.a. ones that represent the entire student body, or whether you are talking about more identity or group focused student unions, such as the black student union, the Asian student union, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfodikh",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Ah good question. I am talking about the general student unions.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jfocc5m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfode6p",
                    "author": "Tnuvu",
                    "body": "Unions usually don't represent those in them",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": -7,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfohfag",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "This is a good point. One might even say governments don't represent the people they claim to represent. \n\nPeople who get into these positions may only ultimately look out for their own interests and only look for votes to gain power to do what they really want. \"Representation\" could be just a strategy.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jfode6p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfoixae",
                    "author": "Agentbasedmodel",
                    "body": "By definition they must do: they are elected by the student body to represent them. Anyone can run for a position and any student can vote.\n\nIt is possible they aren't representative, in the sense that those motivated to campaign for the positions hold less centrist views than the student body. I'll grant that the endless showboating motions about Israel Palestine could be replaced with a bit more focus on err... student issues. \n\nAs you suggest, it is also possible that your views are outside of the mainstream views of the student body, and hence unions do represent the majority reasonably well. Don't like it, get involved. \n\nPerhaps a bit of both?",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfolzrn",
                    "author": "CoriolisInSoup",
                    "body": "But they are elected, no?  \nThe president of the US is not the president of the X party they represent, surely you recognise them as the president of the whole nation even if you disagree with them.  \nWhy are student unions different?",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfonsqq",
                    "author": "ChronoFish",
                    "body": "Here's a reason why it may feel this way.\n\nThe student union persists longer than most students attend a university.  Imagine coming in as a  freshman, the student union is already established. You haven't had time to even know what issues are issues and the student union is accomplishing tasks it has been working on for 4 years.\n\nBy the time you're a sophomore you have an inkling of things that are starting to seem off to you and as a junior you now want to see change. For the last 2 years the Student Union has been busy with an agenda set before you even were aware there was a student union, and now your voice seems unheard because it runs counter to the prevailing winds.\n\nFinally as a senior you're deep in your studies and,.well, you only have a year left...what's the point in getting involved in an uphill battle?\n\n\nYou're right.  The student union doesn't represent students. It represents those students who had political agendas and it's a system that predates and outlasts  current students.\n\nThe school you belong to probably has a left leaning population... But that's irrelevant to the problem with student unions as a whole.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfow9zx",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "> Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly.\n\nI think this is the root of your misunderstanding. They are much more like a government of an area that has a majority of one ideology. I live in a very liberal city in America, the most liberal in my state. We have not had a conservative Mayor for longer than I have been alive, and most of my representatives for state government run unopposed because the Republicans don't bother trying. This may seem undemocratic or unrepresentative, similar to your student unions, but I would disagree. This practice does in fact lead to most people in the city getting representation, better than if we had to pretend that there were two equal choices in the area. \n\nStudent unions cannot possibly represent all ideologies that students hold - many are incompatible. So they must focus on the majority, and in most universities, that means a liberal bias. That is exactly what representation is.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfp67bu",
                    "author": "spiral8888",
                    "body": "I'm not sure what your point is. Does the government of a country that uses representative democracy represent all the citizens or possibly the subset of them who happen to control a majority?\n\nMy point: just like governments usually student union leadership is elected through some democratic method. If certain views are in majority then they get shown as the view of the entire community (students) even if there is are minority views as well. I can't see how else would you do it for students as well as for a country.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfp67xn",
                    "author": "Crafty_Yak_1747",
                    "body": "What exactly do you want them to represent? Should student unions also agree that queer kids are bad? What \"liberal agenda\" are you even talking about? Equal rights for all students? So the conservative students should be able to have their hate represented?",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfpbs0h",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "Opinions about college among US republicans are pretty poor.\n\nhttps://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2019/08/19/the-growing-partisan-divide-in-views-of-higher-education-2/\n\nThis combine with the anti-intellectual thread in modern conservative thought make more less educated conservatives. This isn\u2019t really a a new thing thought, this has been a Trend for decades. It\u2019s fueled by not only the lack of higher education, but the preference for more religious schooling, typified by explicating faith focused schools, such as those that require religious service attendance. \n\nIn short those issues do matter more to students most of the time, I\u2019ll also be honest and admit I\u2019m not sure what conservative issues would be present, in the US it\u2019s mostly just anti whatever the liberal idea is? Colleges have been an incubator for tackling social issues for an extremely long time. It can be a bit antithetical to conservative ideals, college is about experiencing new things and grow yourself. \n\nThe conservative issues I recall from my community college days were mostly \u2018the devil did dinosaur bones and evolution\u2019 whackadoos, with a handful of anti abortion and \u2018gays burn in hell\u2019 types thrown in. They were mostly laughed at, or used for directions (the Adams building is straight and head and turn left at the man screaming about dinosaurs). There were occasionally argument or discussions but it wasn\u2019t really serious, though I believe some of the folks working on public speaking would practice handling groups by engaging. And it was a tradition for every gay couple (and several straight people for shits and giggles) to kiss or make out in front of the \u2018gays will burn\u2019 people. I have never seen someone so deep in the closet than one manly man dude who would stare so intensely at a couple guys making out rofl. \n\nOh another good one was a dude who did his project of avian evolution got the professor to let him do the presentation outside directly in front of the anti evolution nut job. The student got a bigger speaker than the dude, had props and made it awesome, like something from the old bill nye. The finale was him pulling a real chicken out and yelling behold the modern dinosaur.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfqae1t",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Yes, but it is not only conservatives (although I would call the guys you mentioned \"fundamentalists\") who don't have a voice.\n\nReasonable people who don't follow any particular ideology (or even religion), who have very moderate educated views, and who are respectful are often not represented by student unions (*or at least the unions I have encountered. I will admit I only have experience with two unions but the others I heard about seem the same*).\n\nAlternative voices are (in my experience) often ignored, demonised, and unthoughtfully pigenholed into categories such as \"far-right\", \"sexist\", or \"homophobic\".\n\nIf this was 100 years ago I guess they would have been demonised as \"sinners\", \"atheists\", or communists.\n\nAt least on the very liberal campus I was on, 100 years ago if you weren't a protestant you would have problems. They believed they were doing the right thing. Questioning their ideology was a sign that you are evil. \n\nBut just to reassert, I am not saying union reps deliberately do this or that they are all bad people. But I do think there is a broader trend which they are so much a part of that they are unable to see it objectively. Like if you stand too close to something you can't see it.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jfpbs0h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12hcmel",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Student Unions fundamentally generally represent a very left leaning pollicically correct liberal agenda. Of course, many students do support this agenda but the many who don't are not represented. Student unions are like political parties but with a monopoly. They should not use the title \"student union\".\n\nTo clarify, I am talking generally, not universally. There are exceptions everywhere. I am not claiming the student union reps are evil liars. I am not even claiming that their ideology (or \"ethos\" if you prefer) is bad in anyway - even though I fundamentally disagree with it.\n\nThe only point I am making (and care to defend) is that student unions firstly represent an ideology - not students. In so far as students sign up to the far left social ideology they are represented. Therefore, they should not be called \"student unions\".\n\nAgain, not saying student unions are intentionally bad in any way. They are just not what they say on the tin.\n\nThanks for reading. I may not be able to reply to everyone but will try to read all comments and appreciate any respectful constructive criticism.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Student Unions do not represent students",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12hcmel/cmv_student_unions_do_not_represent_students/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jfpzkfd",
                    "author": "quasifood",
                    "body": "I would say, if you don't feel like you are being represented, then you should get involved. Run for a position in the student union and if you are elected you will know that there were other students that didn't feel represented. Otherwise, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who voted for this student union actually do care about these issues.",
                    "date": "2023-04-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12hcmel"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "12jwr6d",
                "author": "stilltilting",
                "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                "date": "2023-04-12",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jg0dbp2",
                "author": "Nrdman",
                "body": "What about for diverting potential asteroids out of the way: https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a36122690/government-tests-using-nuclear-weapons-to-deflect-asteroids/",
                "date": "2023-04-12",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
            },
            {
                "id": "jg0gke1",
                "author": "stilltilting",
                "body": "This is finally one actual USE for a nuke so partial \u0394 for that. But keeping one potential cause of extinction around to deflect another potential cause is at best a wash in my book.",
                "date": "2023-04-12",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jg0dbp2"
            },
            {
                "id": "jg0gmv8",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Nrdman ([16\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Nrdman)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-12",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jg0gke1"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg01zme",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "If you don't think they act as a deterrent, how often since their invention has a country with nuclear weapons been invaded?",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0c7ux",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "According to your logic shouldn't those countries just have been nuked instead of invaded?",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg01zme"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0247w",
                    "author": "tbdabbholm",
                    "body": "If someone has nukes and you don't why would they fear to use them? They use them and they instantly win. So unless everyone agrees to give them up and never ever create them again (impossible) the only way to ensure they're not used, is to threaten nuclear retaliation after a first strike",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0628n",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I think the point OP is making is that if you are in a situation where you are using retaliatory nukes, you have already lost, therefore they don't have a purpose.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jg0247w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg02mv6",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "I would say the benefit is that, oxy-moronically, the existence of nuclear weapons keeps the peace.\n\nSince the invention and proliferation of nuclear weapons, there was not been a single direct war between two global powers for almost a century -- largely because everyone knows it would end in nuclear war. Compare this to the pre-nuclear era, where all-out wars between global powers were fought frequently.\n\nIs this a sustainable solution long-term? Probably not. Would it be better if nuclear weapons didn't exist? Definitely. But since they do, their peace-keeping uses *are* a measurable and practical benefit.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg04091",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">where all-out wars between global powers were fought frequently.\n\n\"Frequently\" here is an understatement. \"Continually\" would be more accurate.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "jg02mv6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg02nws",
                    "author": "ElysiX",
                    "body": ">non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons\n\nIs that outcome worse than complete domination by another country? Matter of opinion.\n\nThey don't just deter other nukes. They deter normal attacks too. Why do you think there are so many proxy wars? No bloodshed in the countries that have a nuclear umbrella. Death and suffering in war pretty much only comes to soldiers and people in countries without nukes.\n\nNoone is going to fight a bombing and fighter jet campaign to move a border a couple kilometers when the other side has nukes. Noone invades you to stop your stupid ideas.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0pbul",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "You don't have to choose to be dominated by anyone. You can refuse subjugation. You can fight using conventional means. And you can also choose resistance to the death over subjugation.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jg02nws"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg02o90",
                    "author": "Bi_Shakespeare",
                    "body": "They have a use as a deterrent against other nuclear states, or just other states in general. That is there primary use in geo-politics.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg06kbx",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Does this mean if every country had nukes we would have world peace? Should we give everyone nukes to hasten world peace? According to your logic we should.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jg02o90"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg02weh",
                    "author": "Khal-Frodo",
                    "body": "> They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody\n\nWhat's your source for \"everyone admits this\"? It sounds like you're only considering conflict between two nuclear powers. If I have a nuke and you don't, the game is only up for you if I use mine.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg06rab",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Even if the defending country doesn't have nukes, other countries would retaliate. For example, if Russia nukes Ukraine, I'd bet my bottom dollar at least one other country would fire nukes at Russia.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg02weh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg038u4",
                    "author": "MrGraeme",
                    "body": ">They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. \n\nThey're only not useful as first strike weapons *against other nuclear armed states*. If the United States decided to send a nuclear missile into Somalia, they're not going to be in a position to retaliate at all.\n\n>They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone.\n\nNuclear weapons act as a *deterrent*. The idea is that, by having nuclear weapons, you will not need to retaliate with them at all because the possibility of nuclear retaliation is enough to discourage attacks.\n\n>But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means\n\nNot to the same extent. One nuclear weapon can destroy a capital city. \n\n> And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. \n\nThis is wrong. The scale of economic and environmental damage depends on the scale of the attack. Thousands of nuclear weapons have been detonated without wrecking the world. \n\n>Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nThere are countermeasures in place to prevent a single irrational actor from launching nuclear weapons.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 20,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg070vr",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Copied from above: Even if the defending country doesn't have nukes, other countries would retaliate. For example, if Russia nukes Ukraine, I'd bet my bottom dollar at least one other country would fire nukes at Russia.\n\nAdditionally, if there are fail-safes to prevent rogue actors, how does America have so many broken arrows? Lol",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jg038u4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg03et7",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">First, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness . .\n\nMutual assured destruction is actually useful. We have historical examples of leaders choosing diplomacy over war, or backing down rather than causing war, because of the presence of nuclear weapons.\n\nThat's a use.\n\n>But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means . .\n\nNot really. Deterrence can happen only when one side has overwhelmingly superior conventional forces. When sides are relatively evenly matched, leaders are more than willing to fight conventional wars.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0cwje",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Point defense is a conventional means, plus non nuclear retaliation is still a thing.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg03et7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg03tm9",
                    "author": "Salanmander",
                    "body": "> And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. \n\nThat's only true *because* of retaliation. If the US didn't have any nukes, and a country with nukes went to war with the US, the country with nukes could easily just drop a nuke on a few major military bases. Or go the US-vs-Japan strategy, drop a nuke on a major city, and say \"surrender or we'll keep going\".\n\nIt's no accident that nukes were used very soon after their invention, and haven't been used (on people) since. The large number of countries having nukes is a real deterrent.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0d4q8",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "That's a myth we used both our nukes and had no more stockpiled at the time, and we had planned on using both of them iirc",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg03tm9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg045d6",
                    "author": "Sirhc978",
                    "body": ">First, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness.\n\nLarge-scale excavation to create reservoirs, canals & ports, stimulating oil & gas recovery, creating cavities for underground oil, gas or waste storage, and extinguishing gas field fires and all been tested in the real world and Russia (then the USSR) has even used some of those techniques for real.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0cqe0",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Yeah but we don't do it because it would be stupid to heavily irradiate a construction area.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg045d6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg05p8v",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "There are at least two peaceful uses to nuclear warheads, Project Plowshare and Project Orion, the first being to use nuclear warheads to move enormous amounts of earth, with this planned to lead up to blasting the Panama Canal down to sea level as an open channel. Sadly this never happened for a mix of radiation and political concerns. \n\n[Project Orion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion\\)) has no substantial radiation concerns if used as a deep space engine, and most of the risk of using one if you're not ground launching it, is the ever-present risk of rocket failure and dangerous materials crashing into the sea. \n\nThe issues with actually building one, even for entirely peaceful purposes, like pushing thousands of tons of Mars base to Mars, is that the nuclear pulse units are still a nuclear detonation, and against various test ban treaties. \n\nSecondly, practical use of an Orion Drive requires some amount of shaping of the charge, basically putting the warhead with stuff on one end of it, and reflectors so most of the radiation goes into that stuff and heats it, shooting it at the pusher plate, then giving thrust that way. This is dangerous because the concept of the nuclear shaped charge was likely developed from this idea, basically taking the idea of putting stuff in front of a nuke in vacuum, and focusing that stuff into what can only be called a death beam. Oh, and these were meant as the primary armament of what basically amounted to a orion powered space battleship that the US briefly considered building during the cold war. \n\nIf you ask me, this proves two things: Anything with that level of energy density needed to be a useful space engine can also be a very effective weapon, and that if we keep restricting anything that powerful because it can be used as a weapon, we'll never make much progress.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0c4kw",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I feel like there is a more effective rocket fuel than nuclear warheads. I'm not a scientist, but that's just what my gut tells me.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg05p8v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg05qra",
                    "author": "SirWankshaft_McTwit",
                    "body": "They play a very important role in that they have prevented a conventional war between two nuclear powers ever since the first two dropped in 1945.\n\nThe very fact that they're so incredibly destructive is an excellent deterrent from conventional war. Also mandatory to mention that there are less extremely destructive variants. The ones you're thinking of are the strategic kind. Tactical nuclear weapons exist.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0d6jm",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I mean we fight proxy wars now which are arguably worse.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg05qra"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg069kn",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": "it looks like you've not addressed the concept of mutually assured destruction.  If you nuke me, I'll nuke you.\n\nwhy do you think we haven't had a real war between any major world powers since nukes were invented.  powerful nations didn't just suddenly decide to be peaceful with each other for the first time in the history of humanity.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0d8wh",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I mean we fight proxy wars now which are arguably worse",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jg069kn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg07fkm",
                    "author": "phine-phurniture",
                    "body": "Simple problem here... The integrity of those who possess or want to possess them and a loud international \"you first\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg07qjg",
                    "author": "TaylorChesses",
                    "body": "They're for having, not using. nations which possess nuclear arms of their own are effectively immune to being invaded. ever wonder why we invaded Iraq and not say Iran or Pakistan? geography plays a factor yes, mountains are bad. but also Iran and Pakistan are nuclear capable. the consequences are dire. the best way to secure your continued political independence is to have a few of them on hand, then everyone is far more careful. In geopolitics there are effectively 2 types of nations, those with nukes, and those without. those without are vulnerable to those with.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0dsxr",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Copied from above: Except like, if push comes to shove, you probably shouldn't retaliate with nukes. Other weapons? Sure, you know, as tactically/strategically requires. Realistically nukes won't completely wipe a civilization clean, there would be a capacity for retaliation afterwards even without nukes. That's the real deterrent. Otherwise there are dozens of countries that don't have nukes that would have been nuked according to the prevailing logic of pro-nukes in this post.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg07qjg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg07t1m",
                    "author": "richnibba19",
                    "body": "If i had nukes and no one else did, i would be much more inclined to use them. They already exist and every country that willingly disposes of them gets invaded, so everyone isnt going to simultaneously give them up. So the use of nukes is preventing yourself from being nuked/invaded",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0djyx",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I mean the UK got invaded by Argentina even though they had nukes.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg07t1m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg08eth",
                    "author": "threeSJE",
                    "body": ">First, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody.\n\nThat's the usefulness. It's called mutually assured destruction. Meaning you probably shouldn't use them. But if you have them you know nobody will use them on you because it's a death sentence for them.\n\nConventional means result in wars and bloody horrible death as in WWI. That's why mutually assured destruction can't rely on conventional means.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0dv7f",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Copied from above: Except like, if push comes to shove, you probably shouldn't retaliate with nukes. Other weapons? Sure, you know, as tactically/strategically requires. Realistically nukes won't completely wipe a civilization clean, there would be a capacity for retaliation afterwards even without nukes. That's the real deterrent. Otherwise there are dozens of countries that don't have nukes that would have been nuked according to the prevailing logic of pro-nukes in this post.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg08eth"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg08gc8",
                    "author": "codan84",
                    "body": "Nuclear weapons have the potential to be used for propulsion for space craft. Nuclear pulse propulsion is at its most basic exploding nuclear warheads behind a space craft and using the blast to push the craft. It has the potential to reach great speeds needed for the vast distances in space. \n\n[Here is an article on the topic.](https://www.ans.org/news/article-1294/nuclear-pulse-propulsion-gateway-to-the-stars/)",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0dy02",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "I feel like there is a more effective way to accomplish this than nukes.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg08gc8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg08py1",
                    "author": "eagle_565",
                    "body": "I don't think many people would disagree with this, but it comes down to a trust issue between states that have nuclear weapons.\nIf there was an international agreement to dismantle all nuclear warheads and plans for building new ones, there's always a risk that one country secretly saves a few hundred, and that leaves everyone else at their mercy.\nFor example, would you honestly trust North Korea to decommission all their nuclear warheads because of an agreement?\n\n\n>But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means.\n\nHow?\n\n\n>And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person\n\nA lot of dictators probably don't care about the planet, but care a lot about themselves and their country. If Russia were to nuke the US with no retaliation, there may be some negative environmental effects for Russia, but these won't be immediate existential threats like a nuclear bomb would be.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0dzzw",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Copied from above: Except like, if push comes to shove, you probably shouldn't retaliate with nukes. Other weapons? Sure, you know, as tactically/strategically requires. Realistically nukes won't completely wipe a civilization clean, there would be a capacity for retaliation afterwards even without nukes. That's the real deterrent. Otherwise there are dozens of countries that don't have nukes that would have been nuked according to the prevailing logic of pro-nukes in this post.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg08py1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg09h54",
                    "author": "ghotier",
                    "body": "Any country with sufficient technology can create nuclear weapons and if no other country had them, then that country would be the single super power. The only rational solution is to keep them as a deterrent.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0a46r",
                    "author": "WeArEaLlMaDhErE-13",
                    "body": "Mutually Assured Destruction\n\nThe best weapon of all",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0e107",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Copied from above: Except like, if push comes to shove, you probably shouldn't retaliate with nukes. Other weapons? Sure, you know, as tactically/strategically requires. Realistically nukes won't completely wipe a civilization clean, there would be a capacity for retaliation afterwards even without nukes. That's the real deterrent. Otherwise there are dozens of countries that don't have nukes that would have been nuked according to the prevailing logic of pro-nukes in this post.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg0a46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0brhv",
                    "author": "Jakyland",
                    "body": "Re: \"only rational course is to eliminate them\" this is a classic case of the security dilemma which is really just a specific case of the prisoner's dilemma. While it would be better if no one had nuclear weapons, unilaterally disarming increases risks for that country. If either US/China/Russia disarm, **what could the nuclear disarmed country do in response to a massive nuclear first strike from one of the other two??**",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0e4tu",
                    "author": "CaptainComrade420",
                    "body": "Copied from above: Except like, if push comes to shove, you probably shouldn't retaliate with nukes. Other weapons? Sure, you know, as tactically/strategically requires. Realistically nukes won't completely wipe a civilization clean, there would be a capacity for retaliation afterwards even without nukes. That's the real deterrent. Otherwise there are dozens of countries that don't have nukes that would have been nuked according to the prevailing logic of pro-nukes in this post.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jg0brhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0xsir",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "So like... vaccination doesn't have any actual use if you don't actually ever run across the disease?\n\nDeterrence *is* an \"actual use\". Just talking about using nukes doesn't provide you any benefit... you have to actually possess them to have any effect.\n\nAnd now we get to the \"actual use\" that is useful: you have to actually show you have effective ones in order to deter anyone.\n\nI.e. all that nuclear testing was an \"actual use\" that both made sure they work (useful), and demonstrated to enemy countries that you have effective ones (useful).",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg0y2up",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Two of them were actually used to hasten the end of World War II in the Pacific theater.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg1ovu9",
                    "author": "PresentationLazy2385",
                    "body": "Nukes are big boy toys don't worry about it beta obviously useless to you but control is important whether you like it or not",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg1s3hz",
                    "author": "a_random_GSD",
                    "body": "Nuclear weapons can generate a EMP over a power grid or city which would severely hamper any response. An airburst nuke would generate no nuclear fallout thus allowing for troops to move in easily.\n\nNuclear air to air missile are a cost effective way to deal with large bomber fleets as the  large blast radius negates the need to get as close as regular air to air missiles and thus jamming and electronic warfare options are less effective.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg1yph1",
                    "author": "VortexMagus",
                    "body": "My personal question for you is: what happens when one nation gets nuclear weapons and no other nation has them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg20r4p",
                    "author": "Reaperpimp11",
                    "body": "No two powers with nukes will ever have another boots to ground serious military conflict again. Run the hypothetical through and you\u2019ll see that a straight forward war where you send soldiers to die on the battlefield is no longer an option against an enemy with nukes. At some point one side will begin to gain advantage and nukes will become a viable tactic to even things out at this point the war escalates and then ends in mutually assured destruction. It\u2019s simple but it\u2019s effective.",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg2bsk5",
                    "author": "aceh40",
                    "body": ">First, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody.\n\nThat is exactly their usefulness. It is a blackmail technique. MAD or mutually assured destruction has worked for 80 years reasonably well to ensure that no nuclear power will be attacked directly.\n\n>Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nWithout Russia's nukes, it would never be able to fight the war in Ukraine. The west would have gone medieval on its ass.",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg48yik",
                    "author": "Viewtastic",
                    "body": "Project Orion was a spaceship designed by NASA that could theoretically reach 10% the speed of light. This would be fast enough to make travel across the solar system easy for means of exploration or colonization.\n\nThis could even be used for efforts to explore other stars nearby.\n\nThe idea simple, you drop a nuclear bomb behind a specially designed spaceship, and the nuclear blast will push the ship forward increasingly velocity.",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg50edy",
                    "author": "peerlessgarbler",
                    "body": "They make an excellent deterrent. See North Korea. The only reason that regime exists is because they could destroy cities.\n\nAlso, disarmament will never happen. Would you trust the nuclear powers?\n\nUSA: Okay let's disarm.\n\nRussia: you first \n\nUSA: you first",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg50qoh",
                    "author": "CapableDistance5570",
                    "body": "Ukraine got rid of their nuclear weapons.\n\nDo you believe Russia would have done what they did if they had them still? Their **actual** use over the last 70 or so years is: deterrent.\n\nAlso I think you've been watching too many videos and movies. Yes everyone universally agrees that we'll completely destroy everything and it'd be catastrophic and everything will get destroyed within hours or whatever. But have you actually seen how war works? It's not as coordinated as you would like to think, at least not now. Maybe with AI... but that's a whole other can of worms by itself.\n\nIn reality they've been so poorly maintained and so rarely tested that they could all be duds. Not all of them are massive, most of them in fact, quantity wise, are tiny. Then there's going to be so much going on at once that people who are in charge of manning them, like they have in the past, will decide not to do it. Internet lines will be cut, EMPs, bunker busters. Most of them aren't hypersonic. Most of them aren't even close enough. Not all cities are densely populated. Maybe about half. There wouldn't be enough large nukes to level all the big cities, they'd have to do several smaller ones. Then they'd have to multiply it to account for the ones that don't make it through defenses and such, in fact the systems are built to do that.\n\nThe scarier answer is that we're just not prepared for war on our soil or another world war. Any type, not just nukes. Within the first 2 weeks so much could be destroyed by just the cutting of internet cables. Just the fact that we wouldn't import/export food or energy. World trade coming to a standstill. Hacking of important infrastructure.",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jg55pjg",
                    "author": "equalRights111",
                    "body": "Unfortunately, one cannot guarantee that every country would \u2018eliminate\u2019 them.",
                    "date": "2023-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jgb11v4",
                    "author": "ReaganVB",
                    "body": "I think they do have a use, I just don't like to think about it. They had their use with Japan and worked very well. I think their uses has changed and I agree that certain nukes should be eliminated.\n\nNukes that can destroy entire cities are only useful as a deterrent so are basically useless.\n\nNukes that can destroy an area no bigger than a military base have incredible use (for now). Using a Nukes on a massive Naval armada of Taiwan would decimate the enemy in seconds. The war would be over before it started (assuming no one uses city destroying nukes). A replacement for these nukes would be the concept called: 'Rods from God'. Non nuclear, same damage, but can only be fired at land, not the sea.",
                    "date": "2023-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jggy1wi",
                    "author": "Yanpretman",
                    "body": "It is the most expensive dick measuring contest in human history honestly.",
                    "date": "2023-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "12jwr6d",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "How often have we heard the phrase \"Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought\"? Even Russia was repeating this refrain while reminding everyone they had nuclear weapon over the past year. So why do we have them at all?\n\nFirst, nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL usefulness. They may be useful in a hypothetical sense, but pretty much everyone admits that if you are actually USING them then the whole game is pretty much up for everybody. They are not useful as a first strike weapon because of the threat of retaliation. They are also useless as a weapon of ACTUAL retaliation because if someone has already launched a massive first strike at you there is nothing you can do about the fact your country and probably civilization is gone. You can only add to the death toll. So you cannot achieve any rational geopolitical goal through the USE of nuclear weapons. (I agree you could achieve the goal of mass death and destruction, but I'm not going to argue that this would be a \"useful\" thing to do even for the planet because the radiation and nuclear winter would take a massive amount of other life, too)\n\nSecond, they have huge costs. In terms of money alone, the CBO estimated that from 2021-2030 it would cost more than $600 BILLION just to maintain the US nuclear arsenal. Imagine all the other things that could go to. But way more importantly, keeping large stockpiles of nuclear weapons means there is always a non-zero risk of complete global annihilation by nuclear weapons as the result of a mistake or accident. In fact, [it's nearly happened nearly two dozen times already](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200807-the-nuclear-mistakes-that-could-have-ended-civilisation) (that we know of):\n\n> All told, there have been [at least 22](https://futureoflife.org/background/nuclear-close-calls-a-timeline/)  alarmingly narrow misses since nuclear weapons were discovered. So far,  we\u2019ve been pushed to the brink of nuclear war by such innocuous events  as a [group of flying swans](https://www.routledge.com/Thinking-About-Nuclear-Weapons-Analyses-and-Prescriptions/Holroyd/p/book/9780709937753), [the Moon](https://blog.ucsusa.org/david-wright/the-moon-and-nuclear-war-904), [minor computer problems](https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/06/failed-computer-chip-lead-nuclear-war/#:~:text=The%20US%20early%20warning%20system,launched%20at%20the%20United%20States.&text=That%20one%2C%20in%201979%2C%20was,the%20main%20US%20warning%20centers.) and [unusual space weather](https://www.space.com/33687-solar-storm-cold-war-false-alarm.html). In 1958, a plane accidentally dropped a nuclear bomb in a [family\u2019s back garden](https://history.howstuffworks.com/american-history/nuclear-bomb-air-force-south-carolina-1958.htm);  miraculously, no one was killed, though their free-range chickens were  vaporised. Mishaps have occurred as recently as 2010, when the United  States Air Force temporarily lost the ability to communicate with 50  nuclear missiles, meaning there would have been [no way to detect and stop an automatic launch](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/10/failure-shuts-down-squadron-of-nuclear-missiles/65207/). \n\nThe fact that it hasn't happened yet isn't that great a predictor for whether or not it will happen in the future. We've only had these massive stockpiles for about 70 years. And given enough chances, accidental nuclear war WILL happen. It's just a matter of time. And the COST side of an equation can't be much higher than total annihilation of most life on Earth.\n\n**So we have zero benefit to using something and a massive potential cost that becomes more and more likely to become an actual cost the longer time goes on. So the only rational thing to do is remove these weapons from existence, or at least get them to such a level that they do not pose an extinction threat anymore.**\n\nThe reason I have a CMV here is that I do acknowledge they have a \"hypothetical\" use in that they MIGHT deter someone from using their own nuclear weapons against you. But deterrence can also be managed through conventional means. And the first strike of launch of any nation's arsenal is going to cause so much damage to the planet and the global economy as to most likely wreck global civilization anyway. Only an irrational actor would choose such a course of action and deterrence is unlikely to work against such a person (just as fear of death doesn't deter someone willing to be a suicide bomber or someone willing to go on a shooting spree until death by cop). \n\nPlease keep in mind that while you could maybe get a delta for finding some ACTUAL use, the benefits would have to outweigh the potential/eventually actual cost of accidental nuclear war to fully change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-04-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Nuclear weapons have no ACTUAL use and the only rational course of action is to eliminate them.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/12jwr6d/cmv_nuclear_weapons_have_no_actual_use_and_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpf853v",
                    "author": "PerfectAttention9225",
                    "body": "You contradicted yourself. How will there be a threat if they don't have nukes?",
                    "date": "2023-06-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "12jwr6d"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1302qtg",
                "author": "agonisticpathos",
                "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                "date": "2023-04-26",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhve8pm",
                "author": "sawdeanz",
                "body": "I mean, of course it's possible to hold multiple values. \n\nI would agree that your political philosophy doesn't seem to be rooted in progressive liberalism. But I wouldn't say it's conservative either. The thing with conservative thought is that when you dive deep down it actually relies on a belief in intrinsic values, namely that some people or groups have more intrinsic value than others, and this is used to justify a hierarchy of some sort. In some societies this takes the form of religion, but even in secular capitalist countries the conservative view can be summarized as \"the group in power is there because they are smarter and harder working and this makes them more valuable to society.\" \n\nLiberals on the other hand believe individuals have equal value. So when you say you believe *nobody* has intrinsic value, then that is effectively the same as saying *everyone* has equal value. It's actually closer to liberalism in that way. \n\nYou see the benefit in cooperation over competition. You can see why inequality and racism is destructive to a society. You might as well be a liberal in practice and for all practical purposes.",
                "date": "2023-04-26",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "1302qtg"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhvfvjk",
                "author": "agonisticpathos",
                "body": "Interesting points. Even my homeboy Nietzsche often times contends that the \"higher type\" is destined to be so. I do think there are hierarchies, but I think they should be arrived at through free competition---not by granting some people an inordinately greater amount of resources to win. So I don't think those in power in my society are necessarily smarter and harder working, as you put it.\n\nYou deserve the delta for reminding me that most of the right believes in some kind of innate hierarchies.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n \u0394",
                "date": "2023-04-26",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jhve8pm"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhvfz02",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sawdeanz ([184\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sawdeanz)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-26",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jhvfvjk"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhumbos",
                    "author": "taeby_tableof2",
                    "body": "Sounds like you're just skeptical, not really conservative.\n\nI like to think that sometimes I'm liberal when it comes to mayonnaise on a sandwich, and conservative when it comes to sharing that sandwich. Idk, don't get caught up on the words, they've been appropriated by special interests.\n\nIn line with what you're saying, I don't understand how \"conservatives\" have been so defensive of fossil fuels and anti-technology when it comes to renewables. The point of renewables is that they help you CONSERVE by not burning stuff. So in regards to your prompt, I see where you're coming from.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhums2f",
                    "author": "Enzo-Fernandez",
                    "body": "Renewables are not economically viable. That is their beef with them.\n\nFor example you build a solar panel. You need  batteries for it. If you look at how much effort you put into building all that. You would have got way more energy out of good ol fossil fuels. Not to mention the emissions are a wash because you still need energy to get all that stuff out of the ground and get it put together. \n\nWe're also defensive about fossil fuels because we understand that modern luxurious standards of living depend on them. We don't know what global warming will do. People can't even tell where a hurricane will go but they can predict 50 years into the future somehow. But we do know what our world looked like before fossil fuel technology and it is not a pretty sight.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": -15,
                    "parent_id": "jhumbos"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhumteu",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "Part of economic competition is winning, crushing your opposition into oblivion, and forcing them into submission so that they can never oppose you again. \n\nHow do you square this natural inclination towards monopoly or oligopoly with your idea of a more equitable wealth/income distribution?\n\nHow would you even accomplish a more equitable wealth/income distribution without government intervention (which is antithetical to the economic right)?",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhurs17",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "I agree that you have to have that mindset of winning when running a corporation. \n\nSo I think of it along the lines of a sports league. If one team had all the best players and there were no rules, they would perpetually win and there would be no competition. So most leagues have rules about trades, drafting, contracts, etc. Without those rule, the competition would disappear, but there are still winners and losers.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhumteu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhun3fz",
                    "author": "lonzoballsinmymouth",
                    "body": "A couple things you're touching on but not quite getting all the way there in my opinion;\n\nYour main point about competition and allowing each person in society the ability to compete, is generally the goal of equality movements. The opportunity cost we incur as a society because we don't provide fundamental necessities for people is the biggest issue with wealth inequality, besides the inhumanity of it.\n\nAlso, as for proving whether human rights exist, I think that's the wrong question to ask. Of course they don't exist as a physical or tangible thing, but it's kind of irrelevant. It's within our capability as a society to strive towards guaranteeing them as best as possible, so we ought to work towards that rather than not",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhus90w",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "Are you saying that competition is actually a leftist position? I don't think I've ever heard that. But when you mention the \"inhumanity\" of inequality, that does sound to me like a liberal morality (with which I disagree).",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhun3fz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhungfv",
                    "author": "Dyeeguy",
                    "body": "You don't believe in human rights, you just think people should have them. It is just a silly argument in what in means to \"believe\" in something. Obviously human rights aren't some force of nature lmao\n\nYou are labeling competition as a conservative value, then proposing a \"leftist\"  solution\n\nSeems you are really more left leaning than you think. I think a lot of people identify with conservatives on a few random issues like drag queens or something and that skews how they perceive their own political alignment",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhutakq",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "I think the position I stated was that some rights should be constructed for people *within* our society. \n\nBut since I also think we will always have adversarial relations with some other countries, to me it's inevitable that in one way or another, directly or indirectly, our policies will work against the \"rights\" that have been constructed by other nations for their citizenry.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhungfv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuod0s",
                    "author": "Kirbyoto",
                    "body": ">Likewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist  \n\nIt's weird to present this as a left/right thing. I'm pretty sure both sides of the aisle in American politics believe in the concept of \"inalienable rights\" and how \"we hold these truths to be self-evident\" and so on.\n \n>And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\n\nIf you think racism is bad then why do you think nationalism is good? A nation is just as arbitrary and made-up as a race. Sure, you could say you're opposed to China's *government*, but that's a specific political group, not a \"nation\". A leftist would say that they're anti-nationalist but would still advocate for the destruction of opposing *governments* for completely understandable reasons. So how can you be a nationalist without being, at some level, a racist or supremacist?\n\nBeyond that, \"a leftist who is also a nationalist\" is not exactly an unheard-of ideology. The [Strasser wing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism) of the Nazi party, or the [National Bolsheviks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism), or [National Syndicalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_syndicalism), all combine ostensibly leftist economic organization with nationalist ideals. They were all, you know, deeply racist and supremacist by nature.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuubyx",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In most cases, it seems nearly impossible to separate governments from their citizenry. We can say, for example, that our economic policies are only directed at undermining  the Russian government and not the people. but the truth is that we are genuinely doing harm to the the Russian people. Would you say that makes us racist against the Russian people?",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhuod0s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuqpxs",
                    "author": "bluntisimo",
                    "body": " your just a liberal, liberals are a part of the left, but they believe in some conservative things mostly the free market... so i hate to break it to you but you are a full blown liberal.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhur77d",
                    "author": "AlaDouche",
                    "body": "Why do you not think people should be treated equally without needing a competitive reason for it? Do you think certain demographics don't deserve the same treatment as others?",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuv7xc",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "Emotionally I see your point, but logically I follow Nietzsche in being skeptical of moral values like the inherent worth of human life.\n\nSo to me there is no such thing as people naturally deserving anything, just by virtue of being alive.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhur77d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhus12p",
                    "author": "Sandy_hook_lemy",
                    "body": "Socially liberal and fiscally conservative?",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhut25b",
                    "author": "yyzjertl",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is that you are framing your positions in terms of US politics, where the things you are calling \"leftist positions\" are basically what the Democratic party supports. But the US Democratic party isn't a leftist party, and is really more of a center-right party. So of course most of its positions are going to be compatible with conservatism. While the positions you describe in your post are positions that the Democratic party espouses, none of them are in any meaningful sense leftist positions (except possibly climate change, depending on whether you _actually_ agree with the left about climate change or whether you just agree with the Democrats).",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuvqqp",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "I have to state my position from some socio-historical perspective, right? I'm not sure there's a universal definition of left and right that applies equally well to all countries.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jhut25b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuwbh7",
                    "author": "LetMeHaveAUsername",
                    "body": "Dude, none of what you described is leftist, it's liberal at best.\n\nOther than that don't worry about finding your current place on the political spectrum, just fucking find some goddamn empathy inside yourself and be a better person. You seem maybe not beyond saving.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhuy2h4",
                    "author": "KokonutMonkey",
                    "body": "The trouble with this view isn't how its spelled out. Sure, it's possible to be a conservative while holding some left-wing positions: they're called Republicans from 30 years ago. \n\nThe trouble is with your labels. \n\nAs for competition being a conservative value, I'm not sure what led you to believe that. Conservatives are all about maintaining traditional power structures in society. The belief that market economies generally work is a standard western stance, not a conservative one. Conservative business owners would happily form cartels if the law would allow it. \n\nNor does conservatism = nationalism or putting one's nation's interests ahead of others. That's why it's called nationalism, not conservatism. A nationalist can have vastly different ideas of how to best run a country and interact with those around it. \n\nAs for what you consider to be \"leftist\" stances, they're not. The idea that the state can't compel a woman to carry a pregnancy against her will, or climate change being a thing are mainstream political opinion across the western world. \n\nBasically, you're not a conservative with certain leftist beliefs. You're a centrist with nationalist sympathies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhvddw4",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "It seems to me that people closer to Marx and thus less free market competition are you usually on the left, while those who are closer to Smith are usually on the right. There's a spectrum in between the two, but I've never heard of someone economically closer on the spectrum to Marx, Zizek, or Sanders being called conservative.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhuy2h4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhv143d",
                    "author": "marxianthings",
                    "body": "First of all, you have to define what you mean by conservative. There is no conservative who is advocating what you are. In fact conservatives in this country are very nationalistic and probably think Nietzsche is poisoning children's brains with marxism.\n\nSecond, you are using too many vague abstractions. Marx, for example, called out utopian socialist La Salle in the Critique of the Gotha program for basically putting out equality as this goal without really understanding what it would mean in real, practical terms. \n\nAnd it's true, equality could mean a lot of different things given the context. You would agree that equality is intrinsically valuable if we are talking about how the law treats everyone, right? \n\nWhat exactly are you talking about when you say equality? The same with adversarial relationships or conflict. Conflict is inherent to all societies but there are different kinds of conflicts that arise due to different conditions. We aren't having a civil war like Sudan is, at the moment. Why? Because the conditions are different and the conditions affect human behavior. \n\nThird, what if I told you that capitalism and its need for relentless growth and production is a huge obstacle in our ability to solve the climate crisis? What if I told you that capitalism is built on the unpaid, free labor of all women and their reproductive rights will always be under threat under this system? Something to think about.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhv5nnv",
                    "author": "Next-Independence-97",
                    "body": "couldn\u2019t this be summed up to libertarianism ? ,,, im unsure on the specifics as my knowledge isn\u2019t great, but wouldn\u2019t your ideas correspond with that",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhvbpzu",
                    "author": "Wefhen",
                    "body": "Nobody has to \"prove\" that human rights exist, they're things that we enjoying having and would very much not want to live without, and so being empathetic, we try to grant them to other people. \n\nWhat makes you think that creating an even playing field for all minorities and cultures will allow a nation as a whole to be more competitive? Doing that would require interference to redistribute wealth, how would that help a country in any way other than improving the lives of its people?",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhvf8s5",
                    "author": "Deft_one",
                    "body": "People on the Left want equal rights (etc.) for all the reasons you laid out here, not 'just because,' but for the pragmatic, applicable outcomes thereof, which you've laid out in your post.\n\nI think you've accidentally mischaracterized Leftists as doing things thoughtlessly and 'for their own sake,' but they're actually done to address what you say you want. In other words, it seems you are a Liberal with Liberal views (based on this post, at least)",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhvnh62",
                    "author": "anewleaf1234",
                    "body": "Would you watch a race in which some racers got advantages and some racers got hardships placed in front of them and feel you were watching a fair competition where the best would be the ones who win?\n\nThe left isn't against competition. We just think that the playing field should be more equal. If I have the right to marry than all citizens should have that right. Cops shouldn't be only stopping and searching black and brown suspects while they ignore white ones. And so forth.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhvtto1",
                    "author": "CeilingFanUpThere",
                    "body": "As an atheist, my definition of morality is listening to my gut about what is socially constructive and individually constructive (moral) and what is socially destructive and individually self-destructive (immoral) and factchecking my gut.\n\nThis definition of morality is probably problematic for some people, but the way I define it for me fits your perspective about valuing equal opportunities for all citizens because it is constructive for the nation as a whole. And I guess I value the universal human rights part because I think it is constructive for each individual. And moreover, if only some individuals have human rights, that kind of competition--competition for human status--is destructive for me as an individual because it makes the world a less trustworthy place to live; that does go beyond simply deciding whether something is *socially* constructive or *socially* destructive.\n\nChanges that make the world more trustworthy benefit me individually, because living in an untrustworthy world is fatiguing, and more expensive. Trust brings all costs down; mistrust raises all costs. That's one reason that having allies is so practical. Adversarial dynamics reduce when two nations attempt to reduce mistrust. Because nations do this, it's not so hard for me to believe that the world is on that path--that all nations would someday practice that kind of diplomacy with all other nations. But since it kind of feels like ten steps forward, nine steps back, it would probably require many great leaps forward, and therefore, an unknowable amount of intention and time. The journey towards that aspiration reduces costs, even though allies can revert to enemies, and even though the path has no real endpoint. Reach for the stars: might land on the clouds.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable\n\nEquality for everyone is something that *some* people value. I don't know that people who value it believe it carries that property intrinsically. But inherently can mean that value is attached to it; our society attached the idea of desirability to equality. Enough people came to believe it is valuable, and society made changes to protect people's lives, liberties, personal choice and personal autonomy, opportunity for advancement, etc., which people generally can't fully thrive without.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nBased on what you said, it sounds like making more competition is inherently a good thing to you; you've attached value to competition. Many liberals value capitalism and/or competition. The difference between conservatives and liberals in regards to the value of competition is probably that liberals are likely to prioritize other values above competition, which conservatives may prioritize too, but below competition. That is a big difference. And the way you have described not only how much you value competition, but also the idealistic aspirations that have less value to you, that makes me think you're a conservative. It doesn't seem very weird that you have reached some conclusions for yourself that are typical of liberals, because I don't expect conservatives to never have those views. They say the conservative party has moved to the right, so maybe other conservatives are more shocked by your stances on climate and abortion and minorities than they would have been in the past.\n\nMaybe conservatives prioritize values that seem idealistic at a lower rank, as compared to other things that most people value, but that seem relatively realistic, like the need for national security. But I don't see that (idealism vs. realism) as an easy way to differentiate between a liberal and a conservative; individual conservatives can be quite idealistic and individual liberals can be quite realistic. Like any spectrum, people have always decided for themselves where they fit on the spectrum, even if other people have a more polarized view of them than they have of themselves.\n\nFrom your quote above, it sounds like you are talking about valuing/prioritizing national security. The climate crisis fits that, due to the threat of more wars over resources (syria's civil war has been attributed to the drought in 2007), but if abortion fits \"for similar reasons\", as you said, **I'm interested to know your perspective on that, if you don't mind.**\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China).\n\nEven people who prioritize collaboration over competition, and even people who go further and don't think competition can compete with the productive value of collaboration, support their nation and allies over adversaries. Embracing a nationalistic political attitude is not a liberal view in the US, but there is liberal nationalism in Europe, nationalism and liberalism aren't inherently mutually exclusive, apparently. But I don't know much about it.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights\n\nGuilt isn't a liberal's *reason*; it's a feeling that motivates and energizes a person to take steps to rectify situations where communities are being unintentionally sabotaged from thriving. I guess there is still intentional sabotage too, but the systemic inequalities are things that might have been intentional historically, but now are just continuing because of inertia, because a lot of analysis and energy are required to meet the level of reform that's needed.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhvycgm",
                    "author": "gslavik",
                    "body": "> I disagree with any liberals who say that ... there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nLet me quote you a part of the US Declaration of Independence.\n\n> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.\n\n-----\n\n> Likewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist\n\nThis is not something that can be proven. We can only agree on what these intrinsic rights are.\n\n> So I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIf most of your views are liberal ... how can you be a conservative?\n\n> It could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here\n\nYou make the claim of being a conservative with liberal views multiple times and here you simply give up on it and claim you do not want to defend your decision making. This could've been summed up by a much shorter \"just saying\".\n\nBased on your post, my opinion is that you are more liberal than conservative, but not as liberal as the view of liberals you describe.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1302qtg",
                    "author": "agonisticpathos",
                    "body": "In the spirit of Friedrich Nietzsche, I tend to agree with the view that competition (a predominantly conservative value) is a fundamental component of ethics, culture, politics, and life in general. I disagree with any liberals who say that equality is inherently valuable, or that there are such things as intrinsic human rights (for any groups).\n\nYet I find myself agreeing with liberals on specific issues, albeit for conservative reasons... the main one having to do with competition on both individual and national levels.\n\nFor example, while I don't believe we should defend equality for its own sake, I do think there should be more income equality in the US as a means to spurring competition in our economy, in education, in technology, and so forth.\n\nLikewise, while I don't believe any minority groups have inherent rights, as nobody has ever proven that such universal, intrinsic rights exist, I still prefer to live in a society in which all minority groups are thriving as this makes for more competition within our country and also makes us a stronger nation as a whole in the face of competition or conflict with other countries.\n\nFor similar reasons, I also agree with the left on climate change, abortion, and a few other issues.\n\nSo I tend to think of myself as a conservative with liberal views.\n\nIt could be objected that my overarching \"conservative philosophy\" doesn't matter if it doesn't distinguish me from a typical liberal. But I think it does. For reasons that I won't fully spell out here, I think certain levels of conflict and competition are inevitable on the global scale. So while a more liberal minded person might hope for a world in which adversarial relationships disappear and that we embrace our common humanity, I think that's unrealistic and thus embrace a nationalistic political attitude that supports our nation and allies over adversaries (like Russia and China). \\[And just to be clear, I don't support any form of nationalism that puts one race or religion over others in our country.\\]\n\nIn sum, I think we should build up all of our communities and cultural groups, not for liberal reasons of guilt, morality, or universal human rights, but simply because it's better for us to be stronger than weaker, more prosperous than less prosperous, and suchlike.",
                    "date": "2023-04-26",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's possible to espouse a conservative political philosophy while also maintaining mostly leftist positions on specific issues.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1302qtg/cmv_its_possible_to_espouse_a_conservative/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhwjs1p",
                    "author": "lalalalalalala71",
                    "body": "I'm curious - do you disagree with the Declaration of Independence that \"all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights\"?",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1302qtg"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "13193r4",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhz9jmk",
                "author": "BlueRibbonMethChef",
                "body": ">t's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated. Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nVietnam was half a century ago.\n\nThe US army didn't struggle in Afghanistan. They controlled the country, from halfway around the world, for 20 years.\n\nThen they chose to leave.\n\nThe weapons the US has been sending have played a significant role in helping Ukraine stave off a huge portion of the Russian military. This is without even putting troops on the ground.\n\nAlso Germany shares a border with France. China would have to send planes and naval units passed Japan, without issue, all the way across the Pacific, without issue, and then land in the US without issue.\n\nAnd transporting a significant number of troops \\*\\*in a plane\\*\\* to the US? That would end immediately. They would be shot down approaching the US. If they managed to parachute in, they'd be shot down in parachutes. If they managed to survive and land.... cool what are they going to do? No knowledge of local terrain surrounded by a hostile military, police, and civilian population with no supply chain. \n\nEverything they need to eat, drink, sleep, and fight would need to be in their packs. They'd have no medical support. No backup. No beachhead they control, no allied countries supporting them. It would be a slaughter.",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": 11,
                "parent_id": "13193r4"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhzcumj",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Okay so I made a huge mental misstep in my calculations.  I was imagining them coming across the Atlantic, but you're totally right it would be across the pacific.  Japan being in the way is a thing.\n\nAlso good point about supply chain.  I was thinking it wasn't as important in modern warfare, but its obviously been a big deal for the Russians in Ukraine.\n\n!delta for those points.\n\nAs for Afghan, didn't we \"choose\" to leave because it was too costly?  Seems like we were expending far more resources than our opponents.",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": -2,
                "parent_id": "jhz9jmk"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhzcxd4",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/BlueRibbonMethChef ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/BlueRibbonMethChef)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jhzcumj"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz91r0",
                    "author": "Presentalbion",
                    "body": "You want people to critique your speculative fiction?\n\nWhat exactly is the view you want changed here, given that literally no one can see the future?",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzba0l",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "The change of view would be to \"The USA is not at risk from China conquering in 2024 election.\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jhz91r0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9f4q",
                    "author": "Negative-Squirrel81",
                    "body": "The premise of the argument, that by losing the election Donald Trump will be put in jail, is ridiculous.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzbd93",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sorry should have clarified, I meant those as separate events.  Trump is being charged for crimes and at the same time loses election.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9f4q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9j4o",
                    "author": "Polikonomist",
                    "body": "We have missiles and air superiority fighters that could easily take out any airplanes over most of our half of the Pacific ocean, much less over Canada or Mexico, our allies.\n\nThe technological difference between the US and China is way bigger than between France and Germany in WW2 and technological differences matter day more in ship and especially air battles than they do on land.\n\nFurther more, Germany was exploiting a previously unseen strategy. I doubt the Chinese could come up with an equivalently devastating unseen strategy.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzca40",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Could you give me some examples of how our technology is so far ahead of China's?  Afiak we are basically on par.\n\nAlso how do you know we have so much air superiority and missiles to cover so much area?",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9j4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9t0e",
                    "author": "ForAlgalord",
                    "body": "Perhaps the only benefit of this country's ridiculous gun laws and dangerous amount of nationalists is that any potential invader would have to deal with a TON of guerilla warfare and local resistance. It might be theoretically feasible to grab a chunk of the US given how spread out it is, but good luck holding any sort of colony together with all the armed patriots out and about. I think the lasting impact of an invasion attempt would be far more likely to be a fracturing of the US into multiple countries, or a restructure in which the federal government deals only with national defense and all other issues are handled via regional agreements and governing bodies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzef7q",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "It's true there would be guerilla warfare resistance, but I don't see it getting very far without unified leadership.  Could even be fighting against each other with how much our country is divided.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9t0e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9z1u",
                    "author": "suspiciouslyfamiliar",
                    "body": "> As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.\n\nShow us that China has a blue-water navy capable of transporting and deploying the *hundreds of thousands of troops* necessary for a full-scale invasion across the pacific, as well as defeat the other eleven carrier groups that would *immediately* come steaming into the fray. \n\nIf you can't do that (spoiler - you can't) then this discussion is moot.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzejlr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "My view is that all of our powerful navy wouldn't matter due to fractured leadership.  The carrier groups wouldn't come steaming because the command would come to late.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9z1u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzb2hf",
                    "author": "debatebro69420",
                    "body": "As long as gun laws are how they are in the states, no army would be able to invade, let alone hold America. There are simply too many guns ready to ambush troops.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzf9sx",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think outlawing guns would be one of their first steps.\n\nOrganized troops with more advanced weaponry and unified leadership wouldn't be stopped by rag tag leaderless rebels.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhzb2hf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzbc0d",
                    "author": "highvaluetwink",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think China cares about the US the way you people think it does, I think China like a lot of countries just trying to spread their businesses across the globe.\n\nMy aunt works in real estate in Dubai and said that multiple Chinese real estate companies are trying to enter the middle east real estate market, that and multiple Chinese cars conpanies did the same, so I assume that they\u2019re just trying to enter every market in the world and grow their economy, a war with the US will give them too much of a headache to focus on that",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzirdp",
                    "author": "UserOfSlurs",
                    "body": "The US Navy is competitive with every other Naval force on earth, *combined*. So good luck to China on trying to land troops on the coast. Not to mention that we both have American vessels stationed in the pacific, as well as allies in Japan and Australia we would likely recieve assistance from if China were genuinely attacking. Beyond that, the US would have unquestionable air superiority, being able to both deploy our Naval air force and our land based aircraft, whereas China only has a pittance of carriers that would probably be sunk before they got to Hawaii.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzmmmb",
                    "author": "Zerohero2112",
                    "body": "If the US want to have a chance to defeat China in the future then they should change their mindset, it's a trap trying to outspend China in military spending. China naval build up already greatly surpassed the US while costing fraction of the money (the labor costs differences, massive manufacturing capacity etc ... A dollar in China goes way further than a dollar in the US). The Chinese navy adds more tonnage of ships than the whole UK or France navy for every few years, China is getting stronger at terrifying rate.\n\nThere is nothing wrong to think like a weaker force trying to fight against a greater one and develop a new plan for the future, it depends on whether the US can swallow it's ego, it's not even close the same size so there is no shame. It would be a terrible mistakes trying to match China on number of ships, tanks etc ... because you can't. Also, the US can't really depends too much on allies, as allies gather around greatly depends on the US being the sole superpower. As the favor getting more and more towards China, US allies would become more and more hesitate.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jhzirdp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzjg71",
                    "author": "cbdqs",
                    "body": "There's this little thing called the Pacific ocean between the US and China and the US has more navy warships than every other country in the world combined. China would barely stand a chance of landing troops on the US mainland if it came to a traditional naval war.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzjgj9",
                    "author": "president_pete",
                    "body": ">If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect. Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot. As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers. President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power. Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other. Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n\nIf China attacks Taiwan, the president won't need congressional approval for emergency aid. If the war escalates, the president can do an awful lot with the military before he strictly needs Congress to help.\n\nThe president has engaged troops in the past without a formal declaration of war. In fact, it's been generations since we've needed one.\n\nAs far as military communications go, we've built our military such that it's not political in the way the rest of our government is. Officers don't care who the president is, because they know China doesn't care. Those who have been pushing for engagement with China will continue pushing for it, everyone can read the same threat assessments.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji0q6kk",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Surely he would need the full powers of wartime though to fight off a full blown invasion, right?  Or would the limited powers the President have now be enough to activate the entire army in defense?\n\n\\> Officers don't care who the president is,\n\nHow do you know this?  I think even our military will have lots of politically motivated people.  Or do they only hire people who don't vote?  Could you expand on this more?",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhzjgj9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzkd9p",
                    "author": "fidelkastro",
                    "body": "This presumes China is this military and logistical juggernaut. China hasn't fought a meaningful war in 70 yrs. Their troops and leadership woefully inexperienced. Alot more is going to go wrong than right and they haven't been tested. America has been fighting for the past 20 yrs",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhznr28",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "!delta True, our troops have been seeing more combat than China's.  In the Germany/France case, the German's had seen action in WW1 (though, so had the French).",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhzkd9p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzqdc5",
                    "author": "Donny-Bandish",
                    "body": "china has a \u201cmighty economy\u201d solely off the back of us corporations using it as a manufacturing base. china will never go to war with the us, for doing so would destroy its economy. china\u2019s ambition is largely kept in check by its dependence on us corporations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzy172",
                    "author": "Jakyland",
                    "body": "> This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view. However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period. \n\nThis is not how planes work! The very fast planes are fighters or bombers, anything that can transport people is more or less like a commercial aircraft, and very easy to spot and shoot down. \n\nIn the most far fetched, extreme case, China might launch a ground invasion of Hawaii or Alaska. China launching a land invasion of the US lower 48 without the assistance of Canada or Mexico is out of the question. You simply can't logistically supply such a large number of troops so far away with only ocean in between while facing enemy resistance.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji05ph0",
                    "author": "aguafiestas",
                    "body": "> What about nukes? I don't think would play a factor. Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with. No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes. Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\nThe existence of nukes is the only reason why the Cold War stayed cold. They prevented two global enemies from going to war for over 40 years. Why would that change with China? \n\nAnd while China has nukes, there is an *extreme* asymmetry in the [nuclear arsenals](https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/) of the US and China. The US has over 10x as many nukes as China. Moreover, the US has a large arsenal of deployed nuclear weapons ready to go at a moment's notice. China does not.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji0qfci",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think it would change because of how we've all seen Ukraine/Russia conflict play out.  Russia isn't even using nukes on a country without nukes to retaliate.  I think it shows how the world really doesn't want to use nukes.\n\nI do see the asymmetry of nukes, but at a certain number it doesn't matter.  400 seems like enough to threaten us to not use ours.  Pretty sure 400 could blow up our country pretty thoroughly.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ji05ph0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji08lq8",
                    "author": "Normal-Flower4437",
                    "body": "In addition to what everybody is saying here militarily, I think you fundamentally misunderstand China\u2019s perspective and goals here. You are imagining an expansionist state that sees itself as having to capture and control a tremendous amount of land that doesn\u2019t historically belong to it, like Japan or Germany did in World War II. Or as a supremacist state that believes that it ought to be able to control the entire world.\n\nWell there are certainly expansionist and supremacist elements to current Chinese goals in the globe, they don\u2019t really manifest the way that you are thinking. China has never really seen itself as going too far beyond its current borders. Other than with its contested western and northern borders, which it has shown no desire to expand, China has historically been rather insular, with its outward ambitions being expressed primarily through economic influence. \n\nAnd as far as economic influence goes, China has basically been getting everything at once. It has sweetheart deals with major western consumers, it has an enormous growing market in South America and Africa, it has a growing influence with major oil producing countries, and it has in Normas infrastructural and financial investments throughout the world. \n\nIn addition to this, its economic force is so great that it is able to dictate to a certain extent the content of global entertainment. Entertainment and sports franchises are already licking the boot heel. Chinese business interests on a tremendous amount of real estate and farmland throughout the western world. And they have very large diaspora populations who they are able to keep tabs on and exert influence on. \n\nFinally, they are watching the west go through misstep after misstep. From the 2008 financial crisis, to the economic decoupling of Great Britain, to the systematic dismantling of the American meritocracy, to the capture of elite universities by administrative bloat, to the ongoing descent throughout western democracies into culture war issues, the west and particularly Great Britain and the United States are losing their influence and losing the faith of many developing economies. \n\nChina does not have to invade the United States. All the China has to do is to continue to grow its influence as the United States and Great Britain shrink theirs. all that it has to do is continue to grow economically, even if that growth is significantly slowed, because with 1.4 billion people they are the dominant market place of the century. they don\u2019t even need to win an eventual war in Taiwan, so much as they have to create a situation where the United States decides that it is not worth the fight, just as great Britain decided that it was not worth it to actually enforce the terms of the agreement over Hong Kong.\n\nThe path to victory for China is much simpler and requires a lot less bloodshed and struggle than what you are imagining. All they have to do is maintain and grow their economic power and influence, build allies in developing economies and oil economies, and continue to allow and enable strategic miss steps by the west.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji0uj9u",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": "What would stop America from just nuking China if it thought the Chinese might actually conquer U.S. territory? \n\nHonestly, what would stop America from using nukes against a Chinese invasion fleet in the Pacific if it felt it couldn't stop it with conventional weapons.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1jbod",
                    "author": "KCShadows838",
                    "body": "Any military force who tried to invade the US with ground troops would get destroyed like you can\u2019t believe\n\nNo comparison between 2023 USA and 1940 France. France didn\u2019t have any nukes and wasn\u2019t separated from the invader by a massive ocean patrolled by the #1 navy in the world",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji26znj",
                    "author": "Groinmechanic",
                    "body": "I think it's more likely they would secretly ally with Mexico with huge financial incentives, and set up an operation in Mexico before invading through the border, then try coming directly. You can find reports of Chinese and Russian troops in South America already but I don't think they've been officially confirmed. China could always set up heavy weapons factories in Mexico and pay them very well to work on these factories.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji5q1xo",
                    "author": "light_hue_1",
                    "body": "I'm going to focus on your understanding of what happened in the Battle of France. \n\nThis is completely wrong \"All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics. Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete. When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\"\n\nTrench warfare was not obsolete. Much of WW2 was trench warfare. Much of the Italian campaign and a lot of the fighting in the Eastern campaign were trench warfare. Even in the war that's going on now in Ukraine, most of the fighting is as we speak is trench warfare. Yes, trench warfare gets a bad wrap after WW1, but entrenching is a critical part of modern warfare.\n\nMany of the ideas of why France fell are very outdated. Let's look at a modern account from a chair of military warfare at West Point. \"The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940\" by Colonel Robert A. Doughty (2014). You can read an overview of the history of our understanding of the fall of France here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Battle_of_France\n\nFirst remember, France was no dummy. It held out in WW1 against massive odds. The French knew how to fight, they took massive casualties and did not fall. And the French leadership was not naive, they were all WW1 veterans.\n\nThe causes he finds are:\n\n1. The French back then fought like the Russia and China does today. In a top-heavy way where you need exacting orders. The Germans fought the way NATO does today, by mission command. You have freedom to do what is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command The French created carefully crafted plans, with phases of attacks, detailed orders for contingencies, down to precise time tables for movements and attacks. They called it \"methodological battle\".\n\n Germany had practical experience from Poland about how to move quickly and delegate. The French had experience in how to fight pitched battles from WW1 that required significant coordination. Essentially, German officers were making changes in the field that required a response from the French general headquarters (GQG).\n\n Had German generals fought the way their orders said they should, France likely would not have fallen. One the key parts of the fall of France is the poor response of the GQG (and specifically the head of the French Armed forces, Gamelin) to Guderian's advances. The GQG ordered French guns to limit their counterattacks understanding that German doctrine was to pause, reinforce, and then move forward. They were 100% right. Those were Guderian's direct orders. But he noticed this change. So Guderian went against direct orders to stop advancing. This panicked Gamelin, he withdrew rather than mounting an active defense thinking the German goal was Paris (as it had been before). Instead, the plan was to head to the coast and cut off the BEF and French armies, Paris didn't matter.\n\n Similar incidents happened when the French and BEF decided to fall back in the Battle for Belgium. Instead of fighting, Gamelin and the GQG fell back, were timid, but they couldn't retreat properly. Retreats are normal. But they're also very dangerous, particularly if you're slow to respond against an enemy that acts quickly. So the French and BEF lost a lot of equipment and strength in the process.\n\n The French were constantly behind. Another example of this comes from Rommel. He trapped much of the French army and the BEF at Dunkirk by going against orders. He moved so fast that that he French just couldn't counterattack properly because their attacks had to be coordinated by Gamelin and the GQG.  \n\n2. The French did not reinforce the Ardennes, they did not think this would be the main advance. They continued until far too late to ignore the evidence that this would be the main attack. The Germans intentionally worked to distract them. The attack in Belgium was meant to pin down the best troops so they wouldn't reinforce the Ardennes. And Gamelin thought it would be too hard to cross the Ardennes.\n\n  The French blindspot about the Ardennes was well known to the Germans. Even back into the 1920s when the Maginot line was being planned, it stopped short of the Ardennes. Petain (who commanded the French army in the latter part of WW1, who saved it from collapse and mutiny, and who won at Verdun earning the title \"The Lion of Verdun\", and was considered the highest national hero, and had just recently been head of the armed forces) was also a firm believer that nothing of military value could cross the Ardennes. (Tragically, Petain would go on to be the highest traitor too, becoming the head of the Vichy regime, and being sentenced to death after WW2; although it was commuted to life in prison).\n\n  All of this was made worse by Gamelin committing what should have been France's main mobile reserves, the 7th Army, to Belgium. Against the advice of most of the French general staff, he overextended into Belgium thinking that this would be the main attack. This left the Ardeness without much in the way of reserves. The Ardeness were also right on the boundary between the 9th and the 2nd Army. But the main reserves for each Army were on the opposite sides of the front, to either support the Maginot line or the Belgian front.\n\n  But throughout all of this, you know what? The French were right! They prepared correctly for Hitler's initial plan. Hitler's original plan, as he described it to his generals was to push through Belgium and the Low Countries. Had the OKW, the German High Command, done this, France would not have fallen. But they kept delaying, explaining that this plan wouldn't work. Over time, as different variants of Plan Yellow were designed, more and more emphasis was being placed on the Ardeness and Sedan. This was the only real hope for a decisive victory. It was Manstein that pushed for a total change, if you have one way to win, then just focus on it and nothing else. After many tabletop exercises, the OKW came up with the idea of a feint into Belgium with a thrust through the Ardeness. The perfect plan to counter the weaknesses and blind spots that Gamelin had. Although, one where if the French could reinforce the Ardeness even minimally, would result in disaster.\n\n3. The French army was poorly trained and outfitted. While at the start of the Battle of France nominally the Allies had 135 divisions, they were not very effective. The BEF was only about 10 divisions. The French had about 40 good divisions, these were largely in the wrong locations because of point 2 (they were in Belgium). Their remaining divisions were series B, older reservists with only about 20% active soldiers. They were not fit for the kind of fighting that was coming. Critically, the Battle of Sedan (where the Germans punched through the Ardennes and one of the deciding factors in the fall), was largely between series B divisions and elite German units.\n\nAll of these factors would favor NATO-style armies over Russian and Chinese armies. And you can see this in Ukraine today.\n\nOne of the key reasons why Ukraine has managed to survive against Russia is because they fight in a more modern and flexible way. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3313982/ncos-key-to-ukrainian-military-successes-against-russia/",
                    "date": "2023-04-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji5zh9f",
                    "author": "CriskCross",
                    "body": ">Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country. It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated. Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nIf you look at the interstate conflicts we've had in the last 30 years, there's the first Iraq War, the first phase of the second Iraq War, and the first phase of the Afghanistan war. All three were resounding US victories accomplished in a matter of weeks with low casualties. The first Iraq War made China throw out their entire doctrine as obsolete and begin a decades long reform program that won't be complete for the rest of *this* decade. And, for however much it's worth, the Soviet Union also shit itself. \n\nEven in Chinese simulations they focus on coastal defense and area denial over Taiwan, not blue ocean operations. Their strategy relies heavily on the use of ground based air support being able to overwhelm the US naval assets in the area, range constraints make this impossible past a certain point. \n\nAdditionally, any hostilities would result in the USN closing global shipping lanes to Chinese imports and exports, crippling vital industries and plummeting quality of life. Overseas assets would be seized or frozen, they'd be cut off from the global financial sector. This wouldn't be a knockout blow by itself, but it would wear on public support. The games rigged.",
                    "date": "2023-04-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "juutdcs",
                    "author": "Electronic-Rub-2255",
                    "body": "China doesn't need to attack usa, why would it?? Both usa and china aren't stupid enough to go into war against another economically strong nuclear powered nation, that just mean end of the world. What china wants is becoming a 'soft' superpower. Having economic control over a large section of the globe, and they are definitely on the right track with successful business in Africa and good ties with Russia, middle East and south America. They are playing the long game, once Africa, south America becomes stronger and more developed, china will have influence over almost 3 quarters of earth, it will become a bigger superpower than usa.",
                    "date": "2023-08-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvmtpbm",
                    "author": "WLW10176",
                    "body": "Won't happen. We armed in this country. Come and git some . California will fall lol",
                    "date": "2023-08-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "13193r4",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhzd72h",
                "author": "Grunt08",
                "body": "I thought I was reading /r/NonCredibleDefense for a second.\n\nChina doesn't have the airlift and air refueling capacity to move large number of troops far from its borders.  It's an open question whether they could establish a beachhead in Taiwan, which is like...right there.  They have enough planes to move perhaps a thousand unsupported infantry in one direction; forgetting fuel, that would mean one trip every 2-3 days.  Once we factor in China's lack of air refueling capacity...a few of those planes aren't making it back on each trip unless you scale it back to maximize your tanker to plane ratio.\n\nSo if they were totally unopposed they could ferry a few hundred unsupported (meaning unsupplied, meaning you better hope your ammo lasts) infantry every 2-3 days.  A lot of dead VDV in Ukraine would tell you how bad a plan that is if they hadn't been smoked by Ukrainian militiamen after attempting to execute a much less ambitious plan against an airfield only a short flight from their own border.\n\nWhere would they fly?  Perhaps by Alaska, where NORAD has been drilling for the Russian incursion since the 50's and a bunch of F-22s and F-35s supported by air defense systems on the ground and air.  That would mean everyone dying as they're shot down, so...\n\nMaybe bring fighters?  That'll tax your tankers *and* Chinese fighters ain't great *and* they're not battle tested at all *and* their pilots are inexperienced.  America (and Canada) would have *a lot* more and better fighters with better command and control...so everyone dies again.\n\nMaybe go the long way across the Pacific?  I mean...you'll be detected half a day before you show up and a few fighter wings and half the California National Guard will be waiting if the dudes in Japan, Hawaii and on carriers don't handle you.\n\n>They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be. \n\nThe Canadians and Mexicans would both fuck them up.  We're talking waves of a few hundred unsupported, totally inexperienced infantry at a time.  The Mounties and the CJNG could handle them.\n\n>Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines\n\nNo there is not.  At all.",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": 6,
                "parent_id": "13193r4"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhzhg5d",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Okay this got me thinking more about the cost and impracticality of flying an invasion force over.  I was thinking we transported thousands of troops to Vietnam, but they were not being harassed and had a controlled place to land in.  Slight !delta\n\nHowever, I still feel like its possible.  US had enough fuel for Vietnam, why wouldn't China now, nearly a century later?  Also, you say Mexican army would deal with them, but are you sure?  They can't even deal with the Cartel...",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": -2,
                "parent_id": "jhzd72h"
            },
            {
                "id": "jhzhjun",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Grunt08 ([276\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Grunt08)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jhzhg5d"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz91r0",
                    "author": "Presentalbion",
                    "body": "You want people to critique your speculative fiction?\n\nWhat exactly is the view you want changed here, given that literally no one can see the future?",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzba0l",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "The change of view would be to \"The USA is not at risk from China conquering in 2024 election.\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jhz91r0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9f4q",
                    "author": "Negative-Squirrel81",
                    "body": "The premise of the argument, that by losing the election Donald Trump will be put in jail, is ridiculous.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzbd93",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sorry should have clarified, I meant those as separate events.  Trump is being charged for crimes and at the same time loses election.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9f4q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9j4o",
                    "author": "Polikonomist",
                    "body": "We have missiles and air superiority fighters that could easily take out any airplanes over most of our half of the Pacific ocean, much less over Canada or Mexico, our allies.\n\nThe technological difference between the US and China is way bigger than between France and Germany in WW2 and technological differences matter day more in ship and especially air battles than they do on land.\n\nFurther more, Germany was exploiting a previously unseen strategy. I doubt the Chinese could come up with an equivalently devastating unseen strategy.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzca40",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Could you give me some examples of how our technology is so far ahead of China's?  Afiak we are basically on par.\n\nAlso how do you know we have so much air superiority and missiles to cover so much area?",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9j4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9t0e",
                    "author": "ForAlgalord",
                    "body": "Perhaps the only benefit of this country's ridiculous gun laws and dangerous amount of nationalists is that any potential invader would have to deal with a TON of guerilla warfare and local resistance. It might be theoretically feasible to grab a chunk of the US given how spread out it is, but good luck holding any sort of colony together with all the armed patriots out and about. I think the lasting impact of an invasion attempt would be far more likely to be a fracturing of the US into multiple countries, or a restructure in which the federal government deals only with national defense and all other issues are handled via regional agreements and governing bodies.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzef7q",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "It's true there would be guerilla warfare resistance, but I don't see it getting very far without unified leadership.  Could even be fighting against each other with how much our country is divided.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9t0e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhz9z1u",
                    "author": "suspiciouslyfamiliar",
                    "body": "> As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.\n\nShow us that China has a blue-water navy capable of transporting and deploying the *hundreds of thousands of troops* necessary for a full-scale invasion across the pacific, as well as defeat the other eleven carrier groups that would *immediately* come steaming into the fray. \n\nIf you can't do that (spoiler - you can't) then this discussion is moot.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzejlr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "My view is that all of our powerful navy wouldn't matter due to fractured leadership.  The carrier groups wouldn't come steaming because the command would come to late.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jhz9z1u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzb2hf",
                    "author": "debatebro69420",
                    "body": "As long as gun laws are how they are in the states, no army would be able to invade, let alone hold America. There are simply too many guns ready to ambush troops.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzf9sx",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think outlawing guns would be one of their first steps.\n\nOrganized troops with more advanced weaponry and unified leadership wouldn't be stopped by rag tag leaderless rebels.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jhzb2hf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzbc0d",
                    "author": "highvaluetwink",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think China cares about the US the way you people think it does, I think China like a lot of countries just trying to spread their businesses across the globe.\n\nMy aunt works in real estate in Dubai and said that multiple Chinese real estate companies are trying to enter the middle east real estate market, that and multiple Chinese cars conpanies did the same, so I assume that they\u2019re just trying to enter every market in the world and grow their economy, a war with the US will give them too much of a headache to focus on that",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzirdp",
                    "author": "UserOfSlurs",
                    "body": "The US Navy is competitive with every other Naval force on earth, *combined*. So good luck to China on trying to land troops on the coast. Not to mention that we both have American vessels stationed in the pacific, as well as allies in Japan and Australia we would likely recieve assistance from if China were genuinely attacking. Beyond that, the US would have unquestionable air superiority, being able to both deploy our Naval air force and our land based aircraft, whereas China only has a pittance of carriers that would probably be sunk before they got to Hawaii.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzmmmb",
                    "author": "Zerohero2112",
                    "body": "If the US want to have a chance to defeat China in the future then they should change their mindset, it's a trap trying to outspend China in military spending. China naval build up already greatly surpassed the US while costing fraction of the money (the labor costs differences, massive manufacturing capacity etc ... A dollar in China goes way further than a dollar in the US). The Chinese navy adds more tonnage of ships than the whole UK or France navy for every few years, China is getting stronger at terrifying rate.\n\nThere is nothing wrong to think like a weaker force trying to fight against a greater one and develop a new plan for the future, it depends on whether the US can swallow it's ego, it's not even close the same size so there is no shame. It would be a terrible mistakes trying to match China on number of ships, tanks etc ... because you can't. Also, the US can't really depends too much on allies, as allies gather around greatly depends on the US being the sole superpower. As the favor getting more and more towards China, US allies would become more and more hesitate.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jhzirdp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzjg71",
                    "author": "cbdqs",
                    "body": "There's this little thing called the Pacific ocean between the US and China and the US has more navy warships than every other country in the world combined. China would barely stand a chance of landing troops on the US mainland if it came to a traditional naval war.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzjgj9",
                    "author": "president_pete",
                    "body": ">If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect. Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot. As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers. President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power. Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other. Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n\nIf China attacks Taiwan, the president won't need congressional approval for emergency aid. If the war escalates, the president can do an awful lot with the military before he strictly needs Congress to help.\n\nThe president has engaged troops in the past without a formal declaration of war. In fact, it's been generations since we've needed one.\n\nAs far as military communications go, we've built our military such that it's not political in the way the rest of our government is. Officers don't care who the president is, because they know China doesn't care. Those who have been pushing for engagement with China will continue pushing for it, everyone can read the same threat assessments.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji0q6kk",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Surely he would need the full powers of wartime though to fight off a full blown invasion, right?  Or would the limited powers the President have now be enough to activate the entire army in defense?\n\n\\> Officers don't care who the president is,\n\nHow do you know this?  I think even our military will have lots of politically motivated people.  Or do they only hire people who don't vote?  Could you expand on this more?",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhzjgj9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzkd9p",
                    "author": "fidelkastro",
                    "body": "This presumes China is this military and logistical juggernaut. China hasn't fought a meaningful war in 70 yrs. Their troops and leadership woefully inexperienced. Alot more is going to go wrong than right and they haven't been tested. America has been fighting for the past 20 yrs",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhznr28",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "!delta True, our troops have been seeing more combat than China's.  In the Germany/France case, the German's had seen action in WW1 (though, so had the French).",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jhzkd9p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzqdc5",
                    "author": "Donny-Bandish",
                    "body": "china has a \u201cmighty economy\u201d solely off the back of us corporations using it as a manufacturing base. china will never go to war with the us, for doing so would destroy its economy. china\u2019s ambition is largely kept in check by its dependence on us corporations.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jhzy172",
                    "author": "Jakyland",
                    "body": "> This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view. However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period. \n\nThis is not how planes work! The very fast planes are fighters or bombers, anything that can transport people is more or less like a commercial aircraft, and very easy to spot and shoot down. \n\nIn the most far fetched, extreme case, China might launch a ground invasion of Hawaii or Alaska. China launching a land invasion of the US lower 48 without the assistance of Canada or Mexico is out of the question. You simply can't logistically supply such a large number of troops so far away with only ocean in between while facing enemy resistance.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji05ph0",
                    "author": "aguafiestas",
                    "body": "> What about nukes? I don't think would play a factor. Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with. No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes. Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\nThe existence of nukes is the only reason why the Cold War stayed cold. They prevented two global enemies from going to war for over 40 years. Why would that change with China? \n\nAnd while China has nukes, there is an *extreme* asymmetry in the [nuclear arsenals](https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/) of the US and China. The US has over 10x as many nukes as China. Moreover, the US has a large arsenal of deployed nuclear weapons ready to go at a moment's notice. China does not.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji0qfci",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think it would change because of how we've all seen Ukraine/Russia conflict play out.  Russia isn't even using nukes on a country without nukes to retaliate.  I think it shows how the world really doesn't want to use nukes.\n\nI do see the asymmetry of nukes, but at a certain number it doesn't matter.  400 seems like enough to threaten us to not use ours.  Pretty sure 400 could blow up our country pretty thoroughly.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ji05ph0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji08lq8",
                    "author": "Normal-Flower4437",
                    "body": "In addition to what everybody is saying here militarily, I think you fundamentally misunderstand China\u2019s perspective and goals here. You are imagining an expansionist state that sees itself as having to capture and control a tremendous amount of land that doesn\u2019t historically belong to it, like Japan or Germany did in World War II. Or as a supremacist state that believes that it ought to be able to control the entire world.\n\nWell there are certainly expansionist and supremacist elements to current Chinese goals in the globe, they don\u2019t really manifest the way that you are thinking. China has never really seen itself as going too far beyond its current borders. Other than with its contested western and northern borders, which it has shown no desire to expand, China has historically been rather insular, with its outward ambitions being expressed primarily through economic influence. \n\nAnd as far as economic influence goes, China has basically been getting everything at once. It has sweetheart deals with major western consumers, it has an enormous growing market in South America and Africa, it has a growing influence with major oil producing countries, and it has in Normas infrastructural and financial investments throughout the world. \n\nIn addition to this, its economic force is so great that it is able to dictate to a certain extent the content of global entertainment. Entertainment and sports franchises are already licking the boot heel. Chinese business interests on a tremendous amount of real estate and farmland throughout the western world. And they have very large diaspora populations who they are able to keep tabs on and exert influence on. \n\nFinally, they are watching the west go through misstep after misstep. From the 2008 financial crisis, to the economic decoupling of Great Britain, to the systematic dismantling of the American meritocracy, to the capture of elite universities by administrative bloat, to the ongoing descent throughout western democracies into culture war issues, the west and particularly Great Britain and the United States are losing their influence and losing the faith of many developing economies. \n\nChina does not have to invade the United States. All the China has to do is to continue to grow its influence as the United States and Great Britain shrink theirs. all that it has to do is continue to grow economically, even if that growth is significantly slowed, because with 1.4 billion people they are the dominant market place of the century. they don\u2019t even need to win an eventual war in Taiwan, so much as they have to create a situation where the United States decides that it is not worth the fight, just as great Britain decided that it was not worth it to actually enforce the terms of the agreement over Hong Kong.\n\nThe path to victory for China is much simpler and requires a lot less bloodshed and struggle than what you are imagining. All they have to do is maintain and grow their economic power and influence, build allies in developing economies and oil economies, and continue to allow and enable strategic miss steps by the west.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji0uj9u",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": "What would stop America from just nuking China if it thought the Chinese might actually conquer U.S. territory? \n\nHonestly, what would stop America from using nukes against a Chinese invasion fleet in the Pacific if it felt it couldn't stop it with conventional weapons.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1jbod",
                    "author": "KCShadows838",
                    "body": "Any military force who tried to invade the US with ground troops would get destroyed like you can\u2019t believe\n\nNo comparison between 2023 USA and 1940 France. France didn\u2019t have any nukes and wasn\u2019t separated from the invader by a massive ocean patrolled by the #1 navy in the world",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji26znj",
                    "author": "Groinmechanic",
                    "body": "I think it's more likely they would secretly ally with Mexico with huge financial incentives, and set up an operation in Mexico before invading through the border, then try coming directly. You can find reports of Chinese and Russian troops in South America already but I don't think they've been officially confirmed. China could always set up heavy weapons factories in Mexico and pay them very well to work on these factories.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji5q1xo",
                    "author": "light_hue_1",
                    "body": "I'm going to focus on your understanding of what happened in the Battle of France. \n\nThis is completely wrong \"All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics. Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete. When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\"\n\nTrench warfare was not obsolete. Much of WW2 was trench warfare. Much of the Italian campaign and a lot of the fighting in the Eastern campaign were trench warfare. Even in the war that's going on now in Ukraine, most of the fighting is as we speak is trench warfare. Yes, trench warfare gets a bad wrap after WW1, but entrenching is a critical part of modern warfare.\n\nMany of the ideas of why France fell are very outdated. Let's look at a modern account from a chair of military warfare at West Point. \"The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940\" by Colonel Robert A. Doughty (2014). You can read an overview of the history of our understanding of the fall of France here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography_of_the_Battle_of_France\n\nFirst remember, France was no dummy. It held out in WW1 against massive odds. The French knew how to fight, they took massive casualties and did not fall. And the French leadership was not naive, they were all WW1 veterans.\n\nThe causes he finds are:\n\n1. The French back then fought like the Russia and China does today. In a top-heavy way where you need exacting orders. The Germans fought the way NATO does today, by mission command. You have freedom to do what is necessary. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_command The French created carefully crafted plans, with phases of attacks, detailed orders for contingencies, down to precise time tables for movements and attacks. They called it \"methodological battle\".\n\n Germany had practical experience from Poland about how to move quickly and delegate. The French had experience in how to fight pitched battles from WW1 that required significant coordination. Essentially, German officers were making changes in the field that required a response from the French general headquarters (GQG).\n\n Had German generals fought the way their orders said they should, France likely would not have fallen. One the key parts of the fall of France is the poor response of the GQG (and specifically the head of the French Armed forces, Gamelin) to Guderian's advances. The GQG ordered French guns to limit their counterattacks understanding that German doctrine was to pause, reinforce, and then move forward. They were 100% right. Those were Guderian's direct orders. But he noticed this change. So Guderian went against direct orders to stop advancing. This panicked Gamelin, he withdrew rather than mounting an active defense thinking the German goal was Paris (as it had been before). Instead, the plan was to head to the coast and cut off the BEF and French armies, Paris didn't matter.\n\n Similar incidents happened when the French and BEF decided to fall back in the Battle for Belgium. Instead of fighting, Gamelin and the GQG fell back, were timid, but they couldn't retreat properly. Retreats are normal. But they're also very dangerous, particularly if you're slow to respond against an enemy that acts quickly. So the French and BEF lost a lot of equipment and strength in the process.\n\n The French were constantly behind. Another example of this comes from Rommel. He trapped much of the French army and the BEF at Dunkirk by going against orders. He moved so fast that that he French just couldn't counterattack properly because their attacks had to be coordinated by Gamelin and the GQG.  \n\n2. The French did not reinforce the Ardennes, they did not think this would be the main advance. They continued until far too late to ignore the evidence that this would be the main attack. The Germans intentionally worked to distract them. The attack in Belgium was meant to pin down the best troops so they wouldn't reinforce the Ardennes. And Gamelin thought it would be too hard to cross the Ardennes.\n\n  The French blindspot about the Ardennes was well known to the Germans. Even back into the 1920s when the Maginot line was being planned, it stopped short of the Ardennes. Petain (who commanded the French army in the latter part of WW1, who saved it from collapse and mutiny, and who won at Verdun earning the title \"The Lion of Verdun\", and was considered the highest national hero, and had just recently been head of the armed forces) was also a firm believer that nothing of military value could cross the Ardennes. (Tragically, Petain would go on to be the highest traitor too, becoming the head of the Vichy regime, and being sentenced to death after WW2; although it was commuted to life in prison).\n\n  All of this was made worse by Gamelin committing what should have been France's main mobile reserves, the 7th Army, to Belgium. Against the advice of most of the French general staff, he overextended into Belgium thinking that this would be the main attack. This left the Ardeness without much in the way of reserves. The Ardeness were also right on the boundary between the 9th and the 2nd Army. But the main reserves for each Army were on the opposite sides of the front, to either support the Maginot line or the Belgian front.\n\n  But throughout all of this, you know what? The French were right! They prepared correctly for Hitler's initial plan. Hitler's original plan, as he described it to his generals was to push through Belgium and the Low Countries. Had the OKW, the German High Command, done this, France would not have fallen. But they kept delaying, explaining that this plan wouldn't work. Over time, as different variants of Plan Yellow were designed, more and more emphasis was being placed on the Ardeness and Sedan. This was the only real hope for a decisive victory. It was Manstein that pushed for a total change, if you have one way to win, then just focus on it and nothing else. After many tabletop exercises, the OKW came up with the idea of a feint into Belgium with a thrust through the Ardeness. The perfect plan to counter the weaknesses and blind spots that Gamelin had. Although, one where if the French could reinforce the Ardeness even minimally, would result in disaster.\n\n3. The French army was poorly trained and outfitted. While at the start of the Battle of France nominally the Allies had 135 divisions, they were not very effective. The BEF was only about 10 divisions. The French had about 40 good divisions, these were largely in the wrong locations because of point 2 (they were in Belgium). Their remaining divisions were series B, older reservists with only about 20% active soldiers. They were not fit for the kind of fighting that was coming. Critically, the Battle of Sedan (where the Germans punched through the Ardennes and one of the deciding factors in the fall), was largely between series B divisions and elite German units.\n\nAll of these factors would favor NATO-style armies over Russian and Chinese armies. And you can see this in Ukraine today.\n\nOne of the key reasons why Ukraine has managed to survive against Russia is because they fight in a more modern and flexible way. https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3313982/ncos-key-to-ukrainian-military-successes-against-russia/",
                    "date": "2023-04-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji5zh9f",
                    "author": "CriskCross",
                    "body": ">Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country. It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated. Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nIf you look at the interstate conflicts we've had in the last 30 years, there's the first Iraq War, the first phase of the second Iraq War, and the first phase of the Afghanistan war. All three were resounding US victories accomplished in a matter of weeks with low casualties. The first Iraq War made China throw out their entire doctrine as obsolete and begin a decades long reform program that won't be complete for the rest of *this* decade. And, for however much it's worth, the Soviet Union also shit itself. \n\nEven in Chinese simulations they focus on coastal defense and area denial over Taiwan, not blue ocean operations. Their strategy relies heavily on the use of ground based air support being able to overwhelm the US naval assets in the area, range constraints make this impossible past a certain point. \n\nAdditionally, any hostilities would result in the USN closing global shipping lanes to Chinese imports and exports, crippling vital industries and plummeting quality of life. Overseas assets would be seized or frozen, they'd be cut off from the global financial sector. This wouldn't be a knockout blow by itself, but it would wear on public support. The games rigged.",
                    "date": "2023-04-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "juutdcs",
                    "author": "Electronic-Rub-2255",
                    "body": "China doesn't need to attack usa, why would it?? Both usa and china aren't stupid enough to go into war against another economically strong nuclear powered nation, that just mean end of the world. What china wants is becoming a 'soft' superpower. Having economic control over a large section of the globe, and they are definitely on the right track with successful business in Africa and good ties with Russia, middle East and south America. They are playing the long game, once Africa, south America becomes stronger and more developed, china will have influence over almost 3 quarters of earth, it will become a bigger superpower than usa.",
                    "date": "2023-08-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13193r4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "EDIT: Not sure whats going on, but even my delta comments are getting downvoted.  So, while many great comments are still being made, I'm going to refrain from replying.  Sorry.\n\nWatching a lecture on WW2 and as we go over the fall of France, I can't help but notice the similarities between their weaknesses and today's USA.\n\nFrance had the largest military in Europe, with equal or superior technology as the Germans.  Yet, none of that mattered when the Germans crushed them in a matter of months.  All due to 2 key weaknesses: political divide and outdated tactics.  Quick mobility and emphasis on armored vehicles made trench warfare near obsolete.  When the French faced early losses, they weren't able to rally or make any sort of comeback due to infighting in both military and government leadership.\n\nPresent day USA has the largest military with all the newest gadgets money can buy.  Yet, just like the French in WW2, I think we could be ripe for the picking.  Our country is extremely divided.  I don't know specifics about our military leadership, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is also split on party lines.  Our military has been engaged in very specific missions that would not reflect warfare with another powerful country.  It's been hunting terrorists among civilian populations, and even at that we've been thoroughly humiliated.  Vietnam, Afghanistan.\n\nAs far as threats go I'm not scared of Russia, seeing their military blunder just as much as ours in Ukraine.  Which leaves China.  China has mighty economy, large population, and advanced enough tech to do the job.  Their fascist leadership and use of propaganda may be morally weak, but it ensures a united country.  They hate USA ideologies, and are Empirically inclined for conquest.  We might have even seen foreshadowing of their intentions with their spotted spy balloons and culture attack as seen with Tiktok.\n\n**How it would play out**\n\nI see it happening much like Germany conquered France in WW2.\n\n* First the Germans attacked Belgium, drawing in the allied troops.  It was a trap and their army was quickly encircled.\n* China would attack Taiwan, drawing in USA navy and possibly even land troops for a potential trap.\n* Then the Germans pounded straight for Paris, while the leadership of France floundered and bickered amongst themselves.\n* Okay, here is why I say in the 2024 election.  If the Chinese wait to strike shortly after the election the timing will be perfect.  Trump loses and is put in jail, causing nearly half the country to riot.  As the Chinese come to conquer our land our leadership flounders and bickers.  President asks for declaration of war, but congress won't due it because they don't want political opponent to have that much power.  Meanwhile military leadership communication is poor due to cross-party lines not trusting each other.  Hell, the military might even be occupied dealing with alt-right uprising in our country.\n* Just like that, Chinese troops pour over USA soil while our troops watch it happen, waiting for a failed leadership to take substantial action.  The White house is taken.  Maybe leadership evacuates elsewhere, but its already over.  There is no country to rally against the invasion: everyone is nearly in civil war already.\n\n**Expected counterpoints**\n\n*What about nukes?*  I don't think would play a factor.  Russia isn't even using nukes against a non-nuke country they are at war with.  No country will use nukes against a country that has nukes.  Better to let another government take over than doom humanity.\n\n*USA is so much farther from China than France was from Germany.*  This is the biggest flaw I already see in my view.  However, I think with how fast and efficient planes have become they could fly over a lot of troops in a short time period.  They could land nearby in a weaker country like Mexico or Canada if need be.  Also, there's the possibility of stealthed ships or submarines having prepared by making the journey weeks in advance.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* It would be difficult to bring over heavy armor across the ocean.  Just troops and planes is a lot harder to take USA with.\n* An invasion force wouldn't have a supply chain.\n* Japan sits between USA and China, making any move across the Pacific more difficult.\n* Washington is on Atlantic coast.  China would come across Pacific.\n* US is one of China's top food importers.  They would need to conquer US quickly or suffer huge food deficit.\n* Didn't think I would give a delta on this point, but having so many guns in our country would make it difficult for an occupying force.  Possibly too costly.\n* China could be fearing Russia too much to make any big moves right now.\n* US troops have been seeing action, China's haven't.\n* The fuel cost and logistics for flying an army across the Pacific are not achieved by China.",
                    "date": "2023-04-27",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The USA is at risk of being conquered by China in the 2024 election (comparing to WW2 France and Germany)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13193r4/cmv_the_usa_is_at_risk_of_being_conquered_by/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvmtpbm",
                    "author": "WLW10176",
                    "body": "Won't happen. We armed in this country. Come and git some . California will fall lol",
                    "date": "2023-08-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13193r4"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "131qwe7",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                "date": "2023-04-28",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "ji4gw33",
                "author": "haptalaon",
                "body": "> Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior\n\nI'd like to challenge this in particular.\n\nThe daily mail is a bad source - it's a tabloid, both politically biased and publishes whatever the newspaper equivalent of ragebait is. [Wikipedia will not allow the daily mail as a source](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/08/wikipedia-bans-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website) because it is unreliable.\n\nThat headline is particularly egregious (what do Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes have to do with this, other than they drive engagement & get clicks?)\n\n& narcissism is an actual medical diagnosis. No one is qualified to make a medical diagnosis based on vibes, so unless Princess M's psychiatrist has given an interview, it's using narcissism as a buzzword\n\nComments must challenge one aspect of the OP's belief, so the aspect I'd like to pick up on is - do you believe the daily mail is a good place to get accurate information?",
                "date": "2023-04-28",
                "score": 6,
                "parent_id": "131qwe7"
            },
            {
                "id": "jjy61lg",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">& narcissism is an actual medical diagnosis. No one is qualified to make a medical diagnosis based on vibes, so unless Princess M's psychiatrist has given an interview, it's using narcissism as a buzzword\n\n!delta\n\nRight-wingers often tell me that the word \"racist\" has become meaningless because the left uses it so lightly, and for that same reason, we shouldn't be using the term \"narcissist\" lightly either.\n\n>The daily mail is a bad source - it's a tabloid, both politically biased and publishes whatever the newspaper equivalent of ragebait is. Wikipedia will not allow the daily mail as a source because it is unreliable.  \n>  \n>That headline is particularly egregious (what do Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes have to do with this, other than they drive engagement & get clicks?)\n\nExactly - the Daily Mail is not a source I'd normally use, but I don't want to be accused of closed-mindedness by monarchists, so I decided to include it to look balanced. As for why they mention Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes, it is indeed to get clicks because they are implying that Meghan Markle is on the same level as these infamous 21st Century villains.",
                "date": "2023-05-12",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ji4gw33"
            },
            {
                "id": "jjy64c9",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/haptalaon ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/haptalaon)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-05-12",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "jjy61lg"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1s4br",
                    "author": "Presentalbion",
                    "body": "How would you measure \"good guys\" in this context?\n\nHarry and Meghan don't need to be dishonest to get attention, they are already internationally famous.\n\n>the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\nSo it sounds like at the very least Meghan didn't create a toxic environment, that already existed.\n\nSo at minimum the Royal Family is a toxic environment, which would make them \"bad\" when compared to someone who is not toxic entering a toxic environment?",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1swoy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">How would you measure \"good guys\" in this context?\r  \n\r\n\nYou're right. No side can be \"good guys\" because it would be ridiculous to say that either side were innocent victims in this.\n\n>Harry and Meghan don't need to be dishonest to get attention, they are already internationally famous.\n\nSome people claim that they do - non-Americans like myself have never heard of Meghan Markle until Prince Harry started dating her (I guess people who watched *Suits* would know her, but *Suits* wasn't particularly popular either).\n\n>So at minimum the Royal Family is a toxic environment, which would make them \"bad\" when compared to someone who is not toxic entering a toxic environment?\r  \n\r\n\nIf Meghan is as dishonest and narcissistic as these sources say, then she has no moral high ground over the Royal Family either.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "ji1s4br"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1sew0",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "I mean, when it comes to Harry and Meghan all the article that you link to can really say is that other people around them feel like they are narcissistic in a \"benign\" way. And considering the way the British media treated Meghan for years, if that's all they can find on her then I imagine she's pretty alright. Meanwhile you correctly point out that the Royal Family is gross, though you leave out [Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a28339290/royal-family-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-relationship/), more or less proving that he participated in underage sex trafficking.\n\nSo even if both sides aren't perfect, I would take the couple who were hounded in the press and seem to be at least trying to live a good life over the extremely wealthy and powerful aristocrats protecting a sex trafficker that cost the British public [over 100 million pounds per year to support](https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british-taxpayer#:~:text=Ever%20wondered%20how%20much%20the,from%20the%20previous%20financial%20year.).",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1ulsh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Meanwhile you correctly point out that the Royal Family is gross, though you leave out [Prince Andrew's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/money-and-power/a28339290/royal-family-prince-andrew-jeffrey-epstein-relationship/), more or less proving that he participated in underage sex trafficking.\n\nI deliberately glossed over that because when I've had republicanism vs. monarchism debates IRL, whenever I try to play the Prince Andrew card, they dismiss my argument by saying something like \"*why are you so obsessed with him, he has a near-zero chance of becoming King*\".\n\n>So even if both sides aren't perfect, I would take the couple who were hounded in the press and seem to be at least trying to live a good life over the extremely wealthy and powerful aristocrats protecting a sex trafficker that cost the British public [over 100 million pounds per year to support](https://britishheritage.com/royals/royal-family-cost-british-taxpayer#:~:text=Ever%20wondered%20how%20much%20the,from%20the%20previous%20financial%20year).\n\nMeghan and Harry are lying about some things, how can we be sure that they aren't even worse? Although then again, it's extremely unlikely they're worse than Prince Andrew. I really want to use the \"*what about Prince Andrew*\" argument against monarchists, but they just played their cards better than me, so now I can't use that argument.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ji1sew0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1siqd",
                    "author": "Vesurel",
                    "body": "When you say there are no good guys, do you think both sides are equally wrong, because to me it seems like 'both sides are bad' to vastly different extents. The royal family is abusive, on both a individual and national level and Harry and Meghan are being somewhat annoying when they call out this abuse.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1uy3g",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Harry and Meghan are being somewhat annoying when they call out this abuse.\n\nThey're also proven to be somewhat dishonest. How are we sure they're not even worse than what the media shows?",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ji1siqd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1vsc3",
                    "author": "Skrungus69",
                    "body": "To be honest the main reason i think harry and meghan are at least a little bit better than the rest is that their actions are hastening the demise of an institution that shouldnt exist anymore.\n\nBeing slightly arseholish isnt quite as bad as the shit the rest of them are constantly up to",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1vwh7",
                    "author": "NotMyBestMistake",
                    "body": "Considering that the worst thing Harry and Meghan are accused of are exaggerations and a bunch of people complaining about how they \"feel\" narcissistic, I feel it's pretty easy to find an easy \"good guy\" in the situation. One side might have exaggerated things, whereas the other is a corrupt, greedy institution of entrenched racism, imperial ignorance, and protecting child rapists (at public tax-payer expense).",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1xyv5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">the worst thing Harry and Meghan are accused of are exaggerations\n\nHow are we sure of this? \n\n>One side might have exaggerated things, whereas the other is a corrupt, greedy institution of entrenched racism, imperial ignorance, and protecting child rapists (at public tax-payer expense).\n\nThe monarchist argument is that the monarchy may be a taxpayer expense, [but they repay this cost many times over](https://reason.com/2022/09/20/the-british-monarchy-is-better-for-taxpayers-than-you-might-think/). How am I to defeat that argument?",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "ji1vwh7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1xq1y",
                    "author": "Galious",
                    "body": "I think that most people who follow stories about royal families stories care more about the fiction and storytelling than reality and they hate Meghan because she's breaking the suspension of disbelief.\n\nIt's like you are in theater and one actor decide in the middle of the play to say \"it's just pretend, I don't want to play anymore\" and instead of just going away, she sits in a corner and start talking on her phone and annoy everyone who wants to just see what happen next in the story.\n\nMy point is that I don't know those people enough to say who is the worse or most toxic. But as a spectator, [the whole circus of Meghan and Harry  \"Stop looking at us\" world tour](https://resources.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/4/z/3/g/9/g/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.710x400.4z3g8c.png/1676933558235.jpg?format=pjpg&optimize=medium) is doing a lot to break the fiction and hurting the storytelling.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1z2cj",
                    "author": "Normal-Flower4437",
                    "body": "The whole point of the monarchy is the storytelling. They play a symbolic role, a role upon which a lot of national identity and morale relies upon. \n\nSomeone breaking that illusion because \u201cthey said some things that felt *negatively subtextual* to me\u201d is just\u2026no sense of scale. \n\nIt\u2019s two people pretending that they\u2019re leaving a normal family. They aren\u2019t. They\u2019re impacting a national narrative because of internal family drama.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ji1xq1y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji1zu2p",
                    "author": "New-Topic2603",
                    "body": "Trying a different tact to what I've seen others say.\n\nBase assumption: Harry is a good guy but has been tricked or is dumb or the pressure of the situation has mentally weakened him.\n\nI don't hold the views of the media around Meghan being a super villain but her behaviour is certainly strange. \n\nA central part of this is the fact that from what I've seen she. Brings up her race' (which she has to tell people as she doesn't outwardly appear as black immediately to many). Rather than her being American.\n\nI would fully expect the royal family to be intolerant of Americans, especially the area Meghan is from due to cultural clashes.\n\nNow with this idea. Let's say Harry didn't understand this and thought it was all racism or it was racism. \n\nI think it's possible from that point to assume that while all other parties may have had negative intentions at point, it's very possible that his intentions were always good.\n\nI'm not sure I've seen anything he's done that could be described as intentionally malicious that would counter this potential.\n\nMy argument does rely on him being somewhat mentally or emotionally compromised which I can't provide hard proof of.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji20gr9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">My argument does rely on him being somewhat mentally or emotionally compromised which I can't provide hard proof of.\n\nI mean, even before Harry met Meghan, he did not seem OK. With his unruly partying, escapism in the military, I long suspected that there was something off about him, or more likely, something toxic in the family that made him end up like this.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "ji1zu2p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji2uixl",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "> I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nSaying that you don't know who the good guy is is very different than saying there are no good guys.",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji5amvh",
                    "author": "OutsideCreativ",
                    "body": ">I don't see how its fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment \n\nThis is inherently false because the British Royal Family is not a toxic environment.  Meghan constructed a narrative which identified it as such but that was a construct of her mind. Check our pictures of the *rest* of the royal family- they seem to get along just fine.",
                    "date": "2023-04-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jjy5kpt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This is inherently false because the British Royal Family is not a toxic environment.\n\nI do not make assertions like this lightly. Hence why I included 3 links in the post details to prove this (4 if you include the one about Prince Andrew). As I mentioned to u/DuhChappers, I even downplayed the importance of Prince Andrew's scandals because monarchists I've debated IRL don't care.\n\n>Meghan constructed a narrative which identified it as such but that was a construct of her mind.\n\nIs Meghan Markle a POS? [Probably](https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/queen-elizabeth-saw-through-duchess-of-sussex-and-said-prince-harry-meeting-evil-meghan-markle-was-a-complete-catastrophe/news-story/009055ae327c013e3570f1587b521a43). But even if she can't be trusted, the toxicity was there before she even met Prince Harry.\n\n>Check our pictures of the rest of the royal family- they seem to get along just fine.\n\nThe Royal Family have access to a PR machine. Even if the rest of them are genuinely happy, Harry isn't, and neither was Diana.",
                    "date": "2023-05-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ji5amvh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "131qwe7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Originally, I wanted to make a post called \"CMV: Meghan Markle didn't wreck the British Royal Family\", as my brother frequently asserts that Meghan Markle's irresponsibility and bad-mouthing created a toxic environment that wrecked in the British Royal Family. I'm kind of glad that [this drama makes monarchism less popular](https://archive.is/HNaCR), but the more I read into this, the less Harry and Meghan look like good guys:\n\n* [Spare: Ghost-writer defends inaccuracies in Prince Harry's memoir after Air NZ shuts down claim, readers point out Xbox error](https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/entertainment/2023/01/spare-ghost-writer-defends-inaccuracies-in-prince-harry-s-memoir-after-air-nz-shuts-down-claim-as-readers-point-out-xbox-error.html)\n* [Meghan Markle is branded a 'narcissist' akin to Sam Bankman-Fried, Kanye West, Trump and Elizabeth Holmes in new Politico story which claims Americans are tiring of her behavior](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11575867/Meghan-Markle-branded-narcissist-akin-Bankman-Fried-Kanye-Trump.html)\n\nThis might just be my republicanism-tainted opinion here, but this is still not enough for me to admit that the British Royal Family are the good guys either. Even if we are to ignore [the sheltering of Prince Andrew](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/press-banned-from-photographing-queen-being-escorted-by-andrew/news-story/7ff4c45589025b42ed5998163340cd9b), I don't see how it's fair to blame Meghan for making British Royal Family into a toxic environment since they are perfectly capable of doing that to themselves:\n\n* [Princess Diana Said to Attempt Suicide 5 Times](https://archive.is/xskMh)\n* [A history of royal divorces](https://www.theweek.co.uk/105754/a-history-of-royal-divorces)\n* [\u2018Short-tempered\u2019 William \u2018difficult\u2019 to work with: Royal source](https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/shorttempered-william-difficult-to-work-with-royal-source/news-story/13732c692cd6e5c7ffcc8e73e756c67f)\n\nTo simplify: Harry and Meghan are probably being dishonest to get attention, while the British Royal Family is a toxic environment even if Meghan had never entered the picture.\n\n**Edit**: I understand that sources on either side may not be trustworthy. But either way, this further proves the point as there is no credible information that either side are the \"good guys\".\n\nP.S.: Don't bother answering if your answer boils down to \"who cares\"",
                    "date": "2023-04-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are no \"good guys\" in the British Royal Family vs. Harry & Meghan saga",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/131qwe7/cmv_there_are_no_good_guys_in_the_british_royal/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ji9uhu9",
                    "author": "El_dorado_au",
                    "body": "My current gripe isn\u2019t really with Harry and Meghan, but the media that promotes their BS.\n\nThere may be valid criticisms of the royal family that are grounded in fact, but the media promoting H&M\u2019s BS doesn\u2019t help with that.\n\nI regard the claims about Prince Andrew as fairly plausible, even if those kinds of claims attract the crazies, FWIW.\n\nThe only \u201cgood guy\u201d in this conflict is the truth, and failing that, I\u2019d have to label the rest of the royal family as the good guys.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "131qwe7"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jk4a31z",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The only \u201cgood guy\u201d in this conflict is the truth, \n\nI agree with that part\n\n>and failing that, I\u2019d have to label the rest of the royal family as the good guys.\n\nI can't see the rest of the royal family as the good guys. I've provided links in the post details to show that they're already a toxic environment since long before Harry and Meghan's BS.",
                    "date": "2023-05-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ji9uhu9"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "133lld1",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                "date": "2023-04-30",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jial74e",
                "author": "Leckatall",
                "body": "The issue seems like it would be more that an anti-theist would not want to date someone religious.\n\nIt is part of their values that religion is immoral. It isn't really part of your values that thinking religion is immoral is immoral.\n\nA meat eater might be happy to date a vegan as they don't see being vegan as unethical but a vegan would probably be a bit more reserved as they do see their partners behaviour as immoral.",
                "date": "2023-04-30",
                "score": 31,
                "parent_id": "133lld1"
            },
            {
                "id": "jialauy",
                "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                "body": "!delta good point. if they see me as doing disgusting unethical things why would they want to date me? thanks for this",
                "date": "2023-04-30",
                "score": 11,
                "parent_id": "jial74e"
            },
            {
                "id": "jialcfp",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Leckatall ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Leckatall)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-04-30",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jialauy"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiagdyk",
                    "author": "CryptidGrimnoir",
                    "body": "Every single faith that I can think of forbids its faithful adherents from entering romantic relationships with non-believers. I acknowledge that you've said you're aromantic, but let's replace \"romantic\" with \"committed\" for the sake of discussion.\n\nWith that in mind, why would you even *want* to have such a relationship with someone who thinks so little of what's a large part of your life?",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiagoj8",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Not true in Hinduism to my knowledge.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jiagdyk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiah3wv",
                    "author": "dale_glass",
                    "body": "I think this is impossible to disprove, because really nothing stops being people from being illogical, hypocritical, self-destructive or suicidal.\n\nYou can go as far as you like in that direction. Eg, could you go on a date with a serial murderer that targets your particular type and expressed the desire to kill you in particular? Obviously yes. It'd very likely end very badly, but you still could do it.\n\nI think you need to narrow down the view so that there might be something to argue about. Maybe add \"and enjoy it\", or \"have a successful marriage\", or something along those lines.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiahet7",
                    "author": "Best-Analysis4401",
                    "body": "Abi, the fact that your continual passion is understanding the theology of people (I realise not just by your name, but I recognise it from the activity you've had on here in the past), how do you think you'll go with someone who wants to see theology silent?",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiai4vi",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Fine. Not every one in a relationship likes or studies the same subject as their partner. For example, I have known people who hate maths date mathematicians, not irl but online.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jiahet7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiahvzh",
                    "author": "figsbar",
                    "body": "You haven't given any reasons you think you would get along\n\nCould you describe how you believe you would interact in this hypothetical relationship?",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiai1cu",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Well, if we had kids we would raise then secularly, go to anti theist conferences, go to debates etc. We would not discuss anything pro Hindu.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jiahvzh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiain10",
                    "author": "NegativeOptimism",
                    "body": "I think it depends on two things:\n\nPriorities: Are your religious values more important than your relationship? I think that unless you are in a relationship with your soulmate, the love of your life, it would be difficult to over-come constant conflict on important issues, especially when they pertain to big decisions like marriage and children. However, being able to have these discussions, overcome them and still love each other completely is proof of an extremely strong relationship.\n\nCompartmentalisation: Are you both able to isolate your religious life from your relationship? If you can both express your own faiths separately, then come back together and leave religious issues at the door, then a relationship can work. It's similar to how people separate their work and family lives, it's often the healthiest thing to do. If your religion needs to be a part of everything you do, then that separation might be impossible.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiaizq3",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "I think our values would be the same. And I am great and compartmentalisation. Do it all the time.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jiain10"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiaivyf",
                    "author": "jumpup",
                    "body": "the bigger issue is are you attractive enough to have the choice to date an anti theist,   dating someone with incompatible beliefs isn't that odd, but there needs to be a reason why an anti theist would put up with you,  and since you are still in school its unlikely going to to be a high salary",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiajhsq",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "Well, because we have compatible personalities and we both might love anime and travelling?",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jiaivyf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiaksut",
                    "author": "CeilingFanUpThere",
                    "body": "A person's belief system does not tell you about how respectful or mature they are. For a relationship, it's about the individual and how respectful and trustworthy and caring they are.\n\nI think that if you yourself think a relationship and raising kids with a particular anti-theist could work, it likely would. I understand that it's actually hypothetical for you, though.\n\nThis also applies to relationships between people who eat different diets.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jiamuiy",
                    "author": "Sufficient-Jicama936",
                    "body": "Hm I don't know\n\nI'm sort of an anti theist myself. I don't know much about Hinduism, but I know that I would never date a Catholic because the blood drinking thing feels evil to me and I don't want to be around people in a creepy cult. \n\nI assume you're not drinking anyone's blood in Hinduism but I also know a lot of religions sprinkle in little bits of poison here and there into their philosophies that I do find really concerning. I think I'd be afraid of someone who follows blindly a predetermined notion about the world like that. \n\nHm we could probably still get along, but I'd still be a little scared of u",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jian8fn",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "If he thinks it would be impossible to date an anti theist, he probably has a lot of incorrect assumptions about anti theists, like perhaps he\u2019s one of those people who thinks you can\u2019t be a moral person without religion.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jibowra",
                    "author": "CoriolisInSoup",
                    "body": "Too many people conflate their beliefs with their identity.  Instead of saying \"I don't believe in a god\" they would say \"I AM an atheist\".    \n\nIf your identity is anti-theist, then why would you date a theist?  It's like a jihadist dating a north american (crusader).  \n\nThat said, I tend to oppose religion in most of its forms and deny the existence of a god, and my wife believes in god, spirits and prayer, so it depends on how much you consider your beliefs your identity.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jic6ko0",
                    "author": "mourningWank",
                    "body": "I am an anti-thiest  and I wouldn't be with a religious person because I would potentially be making religious children(adding to the problem), and I struggle with the idea of spending the rest of my life with someone who believes early human fantasy literature is the way to live your life. \n\nI believe in religious freedoms because I believe it takes time for humanity to reach a point where they don't need early human fantasy literature to make sense of the world, BUT what I tolerate in the world at large is drastically different from what I would tolerate in my family unit",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jicfvkj",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "What if the person interpreted a lot of the stories as metaphors (not literally true) and didn't wan't children/couldn't have them?",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jic6ko0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "133lld1",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "in my religion class, one of my modules is about interfaith dialogue, where we think about topics from the perspective of people from different religions as well as atheists.\n\nOne of the subtopics is interfaith relationships, and I casually brought up the topic of me hypothetically dating an antitheist. I say hypothetically because I am asexual and aromantic.\n\nMy professor was quite surprised about me bringing this up, and he mentioned there could be a clash of values that could cause conflict within the relationship. I\u2019m Hindu.\n\nThis confused me. I looked up a list of values after class and identified mine. I thought about my values a bit more. I\u2019m not entirely comfortable dating a meat eater. I value calm people and positive people. I value people who tell the truth etc. I wouldn\u2019t date a meat eater, but there are likely vegetarian anti theists.\n\n    \nDefinition of an anti theist: Actively opposes a belief in gods of any sort and to institutions built around belief in a deity. They believe that religion is harmful  to individuals and society and that it impedes scientific progress and encourages immoral acts.\n\nCMV that I could date an anti theist, because my professor says it\u2019s highly unlikely we would get on and I want to understand why he thinks that. A lot of my friends think that too.",
                    "date": "2023-04-30",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I Think I Could Hypothetically Date An Anti-Theist",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/133lld1/cmv_i_think_i_could_hypothetically_date_an/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jk3y1rw",
                    "author": "George_Askeladd",
                    "body": "Sorry but anti-theists usually won't date religious people. It clashes with our beliefs and it's really hard to date someone who believes in something as silly as the easter bunny. And there's also always the fear that their religiousness will get stronger, that they'll try to convert us or indoctrinate our kids. And the parents are also an issue because I really don't want strongly religious parents going after me because I'm not religious. Especially in muslim families, the parents are often very rude to their child's partner if said partner isn't religious. \nI just like to stay as far away from religion as possible.",
                    "date": "2023-05-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "133lld1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jk4594b",
                    "author": "AbiLovesTheology",
                    "body": "My parents aren't religious at all. Why is it hard to date people who believe in silly things? I would never try to convert anyone.",
                    "date": "2023-05-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jk3y1rw"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "13oe4fz",
                "author": "stilltilting",
                "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                "date": "2023-05-21",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jl429qq",
                "author": "Upset-Photo",
                "body": "First, you aren't alone in not liking the three common options of he/him, she/her, and they/them. Many people have struggled with this, which is why some people now started the use a new pronoun Ze/Hir, or exclusively ask for the name to be used and avoid pronouns in general.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nThe issue with using Who/Whom is that it's an existing pronoun that is used in a different way. It would be way to confusing and create sentences that don't make sense. Just as you aren't changing I to Who, we can not change he/she/it/they to who.",
                "date": "2023-05-21",
                "score": 12,
                "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
            },
            {
                "id": "jl44sao",
                "author": "stilltilting",
                "body": "I actually think that in English, anyway, which doesn't have gender as a necessary component of EVERY word in the language, just adopting one universal pronoun that everyone uses regardless of...well, anything...would be the most inclusive way to go. For awhile everyone would have to learn a single new word and then after that problem gone forever.\n\nSo !delta for suggesting as much and reminding me that would be an overall option. But if and until it is adopted, those of us who aren't comfortable with those three options still have to fill out those boxes with something. What do you suggest for that?",
                "date": "2023-05-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jl429qq"
            },
            {
                "id": "jl44utt",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Upset-Photo ([17\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Upset-Photo)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-05-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jl44sao"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl3yjan",
                    "author": "anewleaf1234",
                    "body": "Using who will simply cause lots of complications. This is almost going to be like the Abbott and Costello bit. \n\nIf you are going to a presentation and someone asks about when you are going I will have to respond \"Who is going next.\" Which sounds like a question. Even though you want me to say it as a statement.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl3z0xe",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I think asking people to use a pronoun that isn't the first thing that comes into their mind already slows down communication and makes it more complicated. \n\nAnd every time someone replaces my name with my preferred pronouns, getting an Abbott and Costello routine sounds like a huge plus to me. That's one of my favorite comedy bits ever.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "jl3yjan"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl3z8cv",
                    "author": "WaterboysWaterboy",
                    "body": "It would be to confusing. \u201c who went  to the store\u201d\u2026.\u201d Who rote that paper\u201d\u2026 it always sounds like a question. People will just end up always using your name when addressing you.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl3zm69",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I mean that would be fine with me. Except I don't like being called by name directly.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jl3z8cv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl3zt7u",
                    "author": "mortusowo",
                    "body": ">I also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? \n\nI think making a mockery of pronouns like this just for fun runs against what you say you want later in this post. Yes categories are absurd sometimes but they are just kinda part of our culture at this point. You're less likely to make a statement and more likely to have people think you're weird. \n\n>And yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\n\nHonestly it's not only going to be confusing but I forsee most people just ignoring it. They rarely get typical pronouns right for trans people. Anything outside of he and she is unlikely to get adopted easily. You won't achieve even the chaos you describe wanting. Itll be nothing",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl40knn",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "People probably think I'm weird already. I tend to prefer \"unique.\" Which is sort of the point here. I think individual people are unique. I think people can be called whatever they want to be called. And I think people can call me whatever I want. \n\nBut the issue is there are questions that put ME on the spot to define myself in a way that I really don't care to or want to or feel comfortable with. I honestly don't feel comfortable responding \"you must call me she/her or he/him or they/them.\" I don't like any of those choices. So do I just...pass? I think that gets taken the wrong way, too. As does saying \"call me whatever you want, I find it interesting to see what you think I am.\" Cause I sure as hell don't know the answer to that question and think that when you really self-reflect there isn't a great deal of certainty about human identity at all. We have modular brains made up of different parts that evolved at different times for different reasons and those minds are constantly evolving even in the same lifetime.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jl3zt7u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl402jo",
                    "author": "johnmeeks1974",
                    "body": "If you are making a statement against people using pronouns to be engaging in performative activism, why do you feel the need to fight fire with fire?  My issue is not specifically with you but how our society confuses agitprop and stunts for actual dialogue and debate.  The whole who/whom/whose thing sounds ready made for a TikTok or YouTube in which some unsuspecting person is roped into the social statement of the day.  It goes viral and disappears like Roxie at the end of Chicago.  I hear your frustration but you have the power to take a higher road than those you criticize",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl40v1r",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "Well that's just the thing. It's not performative activism at all. I honestly do feel most comfortable with that answer when asked the question. And isn't that the answer I am supposed to give?\n\nI'm not against, per se, asking people for their pronouns but I am against basically giving them only two choices. Three if you count the plural. I'm not trying to be sensational or an smart ass.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jl402jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl40dpl",
                    "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby",
                    "body": "If you don't want to be categorized, why not just use they? Or he, she and they?\n\nThe issue with who/whom/whose is that these don't function as replacements for he/she they. If I say, for example, Who is over there, I can't phrase that in a way that doesn't sound like a question.\n\nAs you already acknowledged, its extremely confusing, to the point that practically no one will ever use \"who\" to refer to you. People will just use they.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl41b51",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "Thank you for what feels like a more genuine response that takes the prompt in good faith. And it's made in good faith.\n\nThey/them maybe doesn't feel quite right because I at least have the initial reaction that it is typically used by people who have a certain kind of nonbinary conception of gender or something like that (that's a really bad description, just trying to grapple with the \"sense\" of how I feel its used) that doesn't really fit me. As in if I said my pronouns are they/them then people would just think I was trying to express a gender non-binary identity that maybe does or doesn't fit me? I'd like to follow this thread some more because my inability to fully answer your question from a \"gut level\" probably means we are onto something.\n\nJust not sure exactly what.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jl40dpl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl41tcb",
                    "author": "RIP_Greedo",
                    "body": "How often are you actually being asked about your pronouns that you\u2019ve spent the time concocting this sly response?",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl44fc9",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "Well in the past month alone I've filled out a number of job applications, audition forms, program/class enrollments and two new email signatures for organizational accounts and I would say about 80% of them had this line in it. \"Preferred pronouns: \\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\\_\" and few had the option to leave it blank. So it has been on my mind a lot actually. \n\nAnd when I see it phrased in that way, as in \"What are your preferred pronouns?\" the answer that has been percolating deep within my psyche to the point that my fingers are ready to type it out every time now is \"who/whom/whose\" if I have to fill it out.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jl41tcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl42biz",
                    "author": "tidalbeing",
                    "body": "Using who, whose, whom would be extremly confusing, even more confusing for using pronouns that could mean a group of people, a group of things, or a single person.\n\nThe point of language including pronouns is clarity. I've been giving the problem a lot of thought. I agree with you that gender/sex should be private. But also who or what is being spoken to or about should be clear. \n\nThe best solutions I've found are to repeat the antecedent or to pluralize the antecedent. The antecedent is the noun that the pronoun replaces. Instead of \"everyone\" use \"all those present\" Instead of referring an unknown party(you don't know gender or number) as a single individual, refer to them as a \"party.\"\n\nAs for name tags, I'm considering writing \"repeat the antecedent.\" I want to keep my gender/ sex private but don't like being referred to in plural. Repeating the antecedent when number and gender are unknown beats having to repeat antecedents for groups of objects and groups of people, which must be done for clarity when \"They\" might be singular.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl43zxv",
                    "author": "Best-Analysis4401",
                    "body": "If you used this pronoun, people will certainly still put you in a box.\n\nIn fact, by focusing so much on yourself and your pronouns, you end up boxing yourself to yourself. That is, you are saying, \"I think I am this kind of person\", \"I don't want to really have a permanent identity\", so then that is your identity of you.\n\nIf you instead forget yourself, then you will be much less \"boxed\" because you won't care.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl46i5q",
                    "author": "political_bot",
                    "body": "If you're already going for the bit, why not commit all the way? https://youtu.be/sYOUFGfK4bU . Who/What . Better than an attack helicopter joke at least.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl4flc2",
                    "author": "thicc_noods117",
                    "body": "I've read most of your arguments and comments so far. Putting yourself in a \"box\" is impossible to avoid. \n\nEven if you don't \"box\" yourself, people are going to box you. If you present male people are going to box you as male. If they actually care about how you feel they might change that box or they may not.\n\nHaving multiple pronouns which is a suggestion you liked still makes people think \"Oh they're queer.\" They still identify you as something.\n\nYou don't like giving out any personal information so it's not just a pronouns thing. You basically want to remain anonymous in real life which is just not feasible or else they'd allow babies to be nameless.\n\nI guess if you really wanted to go down this route the best way would to go by it. Like, name and all. You're just it. It are your pronouns and it is your name. That gives as little info or stigma as possible.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl61tdw",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "And if I were to change my name in that way I think your point remains that I'd still be put in a box that I don't want to be in.\n\nYes, I want anonymity. Or at least slowly revealed identity as I find out how comfortable I am with a person. Spoke more on that in the edit I made this morning.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jl4flc2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl5cgz4",
                    "author": "nyxe12",
                    "body": "Ultimately if a certain set of pronouns genuinely does feel good to you, sure, you can say those are your pronouns.\n\nPractically - and I say this as a non-binary person who uses they/them - if you put this on any application or say it outside a circle of people who accept use of \"neopronouns\", you're going to get laughed at, ostracized, questioned, or likely assumed to be doing this in bad faith or as a joke. Is that fair? Not if you're doing this in good faith, and again, GENUINELY feel that these would be affirming pronouns to you - but there's also people who GENUINELY feel that neopronouns like cat/cats/catself pronouns are affirming and also more realistically only use these online or in certain friend circles because asking for this in the majority of workplaces is going to make their life harder, not more comfortable.\n\n>And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nThis does make me question the \"genuine\" aspect of your want for these pronouns - I don't know a single person who uses pronouns other than the ones they'd be assumed to use for the \"absurdity\" or to cause chaos (other than transphobes doing a bit), even people who use extremely uncommon and difficult to use ones. Because, again, in practice? You're going to get a LOT of people who are shitheads about you using anything other than what they assume is correct to refer to you as, and this bit stops being funny as soon as someone decides to actually treat you like a trans person and doesn't like trans people, especially ones who use uncommon/atypical pronouns. Stating my pronouns, even just \"they/them\", is literally a risk to my physical and mental wellbeing, even though their use is at the same time good for my mental wellbeing. Being out about the pronouns I use requires being aware of the space I am in and the people I'm around and judging whether or not I'm opening myself up to harassment, mocking, or worse by actually saying what they are. I think I would have a hard time trusting that this was a good-faith request IRL unless I had a serious one-on-one with the person asking for this, again, as someone using they/them pronouns - because I've run into a lot of cis people who do shit like this in bad faith because they think it's funny.\n\nNone of this is to say you can't use \"different\" pronouns - but this seems motivated in part by the assumed comedy of using a set that fundamentally makes communication hard/turns statements into questions and not entirely by the need to relieve dysphoria or experience comfort with the correct pronouns being used for you. If you think you are some type of non-binary person or otherwise would be affirmed by something other than he/she/they, I think it would be worth looking at some of the non-\"they\" pronouns out there that are used (zie/hir is fairly common, but there's others) and try and ask yourself what would be affirming about being referred to as those pronouns, and if that's coming from a place of \"heh, it'd be funny to cause chaos\", maybe you should think a little longer and harder about the actual reactions you're going to get and if that risk is worth the reward of the joke that only you are in on.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl62ehb",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "Spoke more to both of these in the edit above. Hadn't read this comment at the time but thank you for a very thoughtful response. These discussions have helped me clarify what really is the source of discomfort in being asked the question (and having to answer it before a group of strangers) and how trying to deflect to something humorous/absurd is my usual way of deflecting any discomfort.\n\nIf you have more to add after reading the \"edit\" portion would be happy to respond when I get the chance.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jl5cgz4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl5eae6",
                    "author": "Infamous-Advantage85",
                    "body": "Have you considered asking for people to use the demonstrative pronouns for you? They don't refer to gender at all, and fit much more cleanly into English grammar than who/whom.  \n\n\nAsking for people to just avoid using pronouns for you is also an option that I've seen go over pretty well. The anti-preferred pronouns crowd still usually flips out, but everyone else seems ok with it. Generally these people prefer their name, a nickname, or the aforementioned demonstrative pronouns.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl5r6df",
                    "author": "jajabingo2",
                    "body": "Jesus Christ what has the world become \ud83d\ude06 \n\nMaybe transform into a blob of white plasma - that what know one will know what the fuck you are and you can be at peace.\n\nYou may have gone too far down the rabbit hole my friend\n\nEdit\nMaybe join a Buddhist convent in the mountains or something? Really seems your only option\u2026 I think most people would find living your entire life like that very hard though\u2026 as much as you might currently think that\u2019s what you want.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl5wh5a",
                    "author": "mwentzz",
                    "body": "Who is not a pronoun so it makes no sense to be called that. I\u2019m all honesty just stick with your given pronouns it would be easier for everyone including yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jl62u33",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "While I have modified my view a view times as noted by the deltas, I have to flat out disagree here. Who/whose/whom are interrogative pronouns. Interrogative pronouns are pronouns. And I tend to view identify as always in question so why wouldn't those be the right ones to use?",
                    "date": "2023-05-22",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jl5wh5a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13oe4fz",
                    "author": "stilltilting",
                    "body": "I've been thinking about this for awhile. First off, I don't like being asked for my pronouns. For that matter, I don't like being asked for any identifiers. Age. Ethnicity. Religion. Gender. Address. I don't even like giving out my name. I don't particularly like being called by my name. And I really hate any honorifics like Mr, Mrs, Ms, Dr, Professor, etc. There are probably lots of reasons for this, but mostly I don't like being put in a \"box.\" I don't like people knowing much if anything about me or having a lot of preconceived notions/biases about me before we even speak to one another. I want them to come to the encounter as free of those as possible and I try to go into each new encounter the same way.\n\nSo lots of forms ask you for these things. Some workplaces now make you put pronouns in your email signature. And whenever I get asked that question in some stupid ice breaker thing or via a form my GUT tells wants to blurt out \"who/whom\" pretty much every time. It just feels right.\n\nWhy does it feel right? Maybe because no identifiers feel right to me so leaving them open, vague, or as basically an open question feels right. If anything I think the Buddhist idea of anatman, having no permanent, abiding essence is as close to a dogma of self as I'd be willing to embrace. I'm very creative and love acting and writing and can play and write from the points of view of characters who are very different from how most others would identify me just on sight. And I feel like every character I play or write is in many ways \"truly me\". And yet not.\n\nI also tend to find most of our human existence and human categories a tad absurd. And what would be more absurd than being able to make other people refer to me with the indefinite/interrogative pronouns? Who is taking the lead on the project? Yes. Whose pencil is this? No, not whose, it's hers. What? I just love the chaos and laughter that would be caused by it.\n\nAnd yet, I want this view changed because I think if I actually start doing it, it will just get me in trouble. I think people who really care about the pronoun thing are going to think I'm making fun of them or their concerns or somehow not taking it seriously. I think those who are irrationally angry about being asked for pronouns are either going to mistakenly think I'm on their side trying to expose how ridiculous it is or just ignore my request cause I couldn't seriously expect them to use THOSE pronouns. And obviously it makes communication harder, not easier because 3rd person pronouns are really for OTHER people to identify me to other other people so shouldn't they just use whatever pronouns work best to do that?\n\nI want this view changed cause I think if I actually put this on a job application or an email signature or an audition form even that it would just be a personal detriment and serve no real purpose other than to get me ostracized by both \"sides\" of the great pronoun war and everyone who else who is sick of it at the same time.\n\nAnd yet--it's the only set of pronouns that feels right to me. Has nothing to do with gender, really. And maybe I want to expand the challenge to identity even further. Maybe the point is we need to find that which is universally human if we are to reconnect one with another and stop being so lonely and at each other's throats. So ummm...yeah.\n\nCMV: I should start saying/writing that my pronouns are who/whom/whose whenever I am given that choice to make.\n\n**EDIT: Thanks to** u/sirlafemme **and others for a clarifying conversation below. After those conversations, want to add this edit:**\n\nI will say that the whole thing probably makes me uncomfortable because while I'm not usually uncomfortable with gender identity per se, I have a whole lot of issues around identity more generally. My issue is mainly I don't like being asked to \"pick\" because I want to be open in some ways to becoming whatever is needed at the moment. I really do like to find out about who I am speaking with first and then I will emphasize whatever parts of my own identity I think they will feel most comfortable with. And I guess that's part people pleasing and part fear of rejection.\n\nWhich is weird because I'm not usually afraid to stand up for something. Even an unpopular something. But I'm much more comfortable with standing up for an IDEA than for my SELF. And maybe the pronoun thing makes me profoundly uncomfortable because I feel like it's throwing a question onto me about my SELF, publicly in a way I have a choice and in a way that could say something about how I view that SELF. And I'm not ready for that kind of SELF-disclosure right up front when these kinds of questions are usually asked.\n\nOther questions bother me a little less because they could be seen as \"facts\". Like if the ice breaker is \"where were you born\" or \"where are you from/where do you live\" I'm not making a choice or saying I identify with or don't identify with the place I was born.\n\nAnd lastly, when I am uncomfortable with something and don't like showing I'm uncomfortable with something my first and only remotely healthy coping mechanism is humor. Trying to be funny/absurd or trying to brush it off with an out of the box and kind of ridiculous answer is my way of deflecting and getting out of the box. But I don't want to use that if it's going to make someone else potentially feel made fun OF.",
                    "date": "2023-05-21",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: If I Can Choose My Pronouns I'm Going to Go With Who/Whom/Whose",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13oe4fz/cmv_if_i_can_choose_my_pronouns_im_going_to_go/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlc2n19",
                    "author": "Coooo8",
                    "body": "This isn't practical because it changes the meaning of your sentence dramatically. Full disclosure, I go by they/them pronouns and am non-binary.\n\nSo someone referring to me would say: \"They went to work today.\" \"They\" is commonly plural, but is used to refer to a known person or group, so this is just a minor mental adjustment for most people.\n\nSomeone referring to you would say: \"Who went to work today.\" Which sounds like a question. \"Who\" is a pronoun that is only ever used for an unknown person, that's why it exists.",
                    "date": "2023-05-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13oe4fz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "13u71ft",
                "author": "Anonon_990",
                "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                "date": "2023-05-28",
                "score": 36,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jlz8jbi",
                "author": "Spanglertastic",
                "body": "History has shown that the NRA faction will support gun control if they feel it will be applied in a racist manner or will be applied more harshly towards minorities. The NRA supported the Mulford Act after the Black Panthers started carrying guns. Gun rights advocates oppose restoring rights to felons because the large number of black males who were targeted in the Drug War.  You just have to look at things like the NRAs failed response to the Philando Castile shooting to see where their support ends. \n\nThey only oppose legislation that they feel applies primarily, or equally, to their core demographic. If there was a bill that barred Muslims (for example) from buying a gun, most of the right wing would support it.",
                "date": "2023-05-28",
                "score": -3,
                "parent_id": "13u71ft"
            },
            {
                "id": "jm01hjj",
                "author": "Anonon_990",
                "body": "This is actually a good point. They do seem very selective in who counts as a \"real\" gun owner and they're less likely to be outraged when a black person suffers through carrying a gun.\n\n!delta",
                "date": "2023-05-28",
                "score": -5,
                "parent_id": "jlz8jbi"
            },
            {
                "id": "jm01l1j",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Spanglertastic ([7\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Spanglertastic)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-05-28",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jm01hjj"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz0sxy",
                    "author": "UserOfSlurs",
                    "body": "I refuse gun control because I have no seen effective arguments. That doesn't mean that no argument could exist, just that nobody has presented it. You seem to just be caught up in that *your* chosen arguments aren't just met with universal support for gun control.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz1473",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "What argument would convince you?\n\n>You seem to just be caught up in that your chosen arguments aren't just met with universal support for gun control.\n\nActually everyone agrees with me outside of a large minority in the US. My view is common in every other nation and in half of the US.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "jlz0sxy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz0ypd",
                    "author": "JustSomeApparition",
                    "body": "[Here is a video by Lawyer Leeja Miller](https://youtu.be/zcMrDGs71v8) where she discusses the history of the second amendment and how it evolved into what it came to be today including what it would take to change it.\n\nIt is possible, but it's not just a matter of convincing the people; however, possible nonetheless.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz1ahp",
                    "author": "TouchGrassRedditor",
                    "body": "Just because none of your arguments can change the mind of the other side doesn\u2019t mean that no argument would ever be capable of it. Your arguments might simply not be as convincing as you think.\n\nThe reality is that America is not the only country with guns, but it\u2019s the only country with this reoccurring problem. It\u2019s a complicated issue that, if you ask me, is mostly cultural and driven by the 24 hour news cycle giving these killers exactly what they want: attention and infamy",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz21rg",
                    "author": "loufalnicek",
                    "body": "I wonder if you truly appreciate how much of an outlier the U S. is in terms of gun ownership:\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country\n\nDo other countries not have 24/7 news cycles, why would that be a uniquely American thing?",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jlz1ahp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz3e24",
                    "author": "CBL44",
                    "body": "You are misrepresenting the views of people who refuse to budge on gun control. They neither feels there are no problems with America's gun culturel or have a religious belief.\n\nThey see problems but they want to keep their guns for protection, hunting, target shooting and fear of government overreach. These are valid reasons for wanting to keep guns despite the fact you and others disagree.  \n\nYou think they should compromise which is reasonable but gun owners do not trust progressives to stop at a small steps. They know that many progressive want to ban guns and believe than any compromise would lead to demands for ever increasing restrictions. \n\nTo sum it up.\n1) They want guns for valid reasons.\n2) They see problems with guns but think the benefits outweigh the cost.\n3) They refuse budge because they know progressives want to ban guns and any gun control is a step towards banning guns entirely.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 54,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz441v",
                    "author": "PizzaKubeti",
                    "body": "With point 3 you are proving his CMV. They refuse to budge = no arguement would suffice.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jlz3e24"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz3glj",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't that just true of most political divides, though? The right to own guns is a privilege that offers power over others. So the argument you're making is that a group of priveliged people cannot be rhetorically convinced to willingly give up their privileges, which, you know, obviously, right",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm007c3",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "That's fair. It names it not unique but I think the intensity of the opponents to gun control is unique given the amount of gun violence in America.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jlz3glj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz3t64",
                    "author": "TheSarcasticCrusader",
                    "body": ">gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue.\n\nGun control supporters also refuse to budge, and never offer a real compromise.\n\nThey just take what they want little by little. Never actually giving anything in return. \"Just this little extra addition will help fix things, nothing more,\" etc etc.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz4mie",
                    "author": "MontiBurns",
                    "body": "What compromise would be accpetavle for you?",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jlz3t64"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz44br",
                    "author": "apsidalsauce",
                    "body": "It\u2019s literally written into our Constitution.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz50ko",
                    "author": "KonaKathie",
                    "body": "When the guns referenced were single-shot and could barely hit the side of a barn.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jlz44br"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz49ja",
                    "author": "Freezefire2",
                    "body": "Is there an argument that would convince you that America's gun culture (I don't know what America's gun culture is) isn't a problem?",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz90ql",
                    "author": "Selethorme",
                    "body": "Yes.\n\nIt would just require different facts than the real world.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jlz49ja"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz4apb",
                    "author": "TylerDurden626",
                    "body": "I think most gun rights supporters would also support a crackdown on gangs, that would easily bring down the gun crime rate. The problem is the other side refuses to crack down on anyone that could be perceived as making them look racist. \nAlso gun rights supporters don\u2019t see suicide as gun violence, it would be like calling someone jumping off a building \u201cgravity violence\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz9rxu",
                    "author": "KnittingTrekkie",
                    "body": "People often argue that if someone is determined enough, they would manage to commit suicide, so gun deaths by suicide don\u2019t matter. But completed suicide is much more likely with access to more lethal means of committing suicide. (And they also do more damage to people who manage to survive an attempt than other means. I knew a survivor of a gun suicide attempt who have had to live with brain damage.) Gun advocates should still support safe storage and [https://www.endfamilyfire.org/](https://www.endfamilyfire.org/) has information to help prevent suicide.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jlz4apb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz60cb",
                    "author": "geeman1984",
                    "body": "I'd rather live in a culture that gives me the tools of self defence rather than a knife attack culture that takes away your avenue and right of self defence.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm00g3p",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "There are methods of self defence aside from guns. Tasers, mace etc",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "jlz60cb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz64ud",
                    "author": "jumpup",
                    "body": "well i changed the mind of one, so even if its 99.9999% its not a 100%.\n\nbut for most arguments its not actually a debate,  a gun user knows guns kill people, so arguing that it causes deaths isn't actually an argument, the trick is to establish rules, like if a kids under 13 it shouldn't be allowed around a gun,  then its if a kid has mental issues it shouldn't be allowed a gun, then if an adult has severe mental issues he shouldn't have a gun  etc\n\nits not that they don't know guns have problems, they just want to keep their own and not have to deal with a lot of hassle",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlz74d0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Ear_9014",
                    "body": "Historically, the US has passed gun control legislation with the Gun Control Act of 1968, in 1993 with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Violent Crime Control Act and machine weapons ban shortly after in 1994. \n\nEdit: Shortened to remove context.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm01b7o",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "This is actually a fair point. Do you think modern conservatives would do the same?",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "jlz74d0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzb159",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "This is the case because gun control comes from the premise that the actions of bad people should be able to impact the rights of good people. This is a form of collective punishment and wrong on both a legal and moral level, given that it's taking the rights of people to own guns because of the actions of people who misused those rights.  \n\nFundamentally, this is a philosophic difference in valuing individual rights above safety, and not at all a problem, but a valid ideological difference. \n\nWhere the problem is, is that modern life is stressful to the point that people being driven to mass-murder-suicide is becoming alarmingly common, and it's very hard to stop people who hate the world and have nothing to lose. Actually doing something about it would probably be best done by making it so life doesn't drive people as crazy, but that's not happening, as increasing standard of living would be more expensive than paying for these shootings. Furthermore, disarming the populous is actively helpful when working people until they want to die is standard operating procedure.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzphre",
                    "author": "Selethorme",
                    "body": "That\u2019s a fundamentally untrue assertion, particularly as none of what\u2019s generally called \u201ccommon sense gun regulation\u201d actually impacts the rights of \u201cgood people\u201d at all.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "jlzb159"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzbttc",
                    "author": "DBDude",
                    "body": "Define \"gun culture.\" Where I am, \"gun culture\" means community shooting and hunting clubs, and kids being raised shooting knowing the responsibility that comes with it. This \"gun culture\" is not contributing to any societal problems. \n\nIn this country we have things called constitutional rights. They can't be violated. Guns are one of those rights. That's the end of the story unless you can get enough support to amend the Constitution. \n\nWe did have a history of oppression in the name of safety. The case of Dred Scott said that black people shouldn't be recognized as citizens or it would cause a whole host of negative societal issues. Arguments against our early civil rights laws said that it would be dangerous to protect the rights of black people since the police wouldn't be able to crack down on them to suppress violent crime. \n\nAnd guess what, we started protecting the rights of black people over their objections. Sure, black people now commit violent crimes at a far higher rate than any other race, but it doesn't matter as far as rights go. Those arguments to suppress their rights to keep violent crime down are simply not acceptable. \n\nAnd what makes you think gun control supporters actually want to reduce deaths? The difference between a banned \"assault weapon\" and a legal rifle can be as simple as the presence of a bayonet lug. That doesn't have anything to do with the suitability of the rifle for shooting people, but it gets a gun banned. When was the last time we had a mounted bayonet murder in this country?",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzg70a",
                    "author": "Moonblaze13",
                    "body": ">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\n\nThe founding fathers had a plan for how the country would be defended. There was near universal agreement that the federal government having a standing army was not to be trusted as that could easily turn tyrannical. The states were expected to maintain militias that, should the whole country come under threat, would be used to defend it.\n\nIn the context of what they wrote at the time about their intentions, the second amendment (which consists of this single sentence) is pretty clearly referring to the maintaince of a milita. Especially when you consider that \"the people\" is used by the founding fathers to refer to representatives numerous times in their writings. Such as \"We the people find these truths to be self evident\". 'People' was used used in contrast to King.\n\nNow, I am one who believes that if we were to ask the founding fathers what they meant by something, they would respond with something akin to; decide for yourself. We made the government able to change so it could adapt to the times. What we meant doesn't matter, what matches the needs of your time should matter. So I'm not bringing this up to make any kind of argument that their intentions are the way we ought to interpret it. The Supreme Court has already ruled that, in effect, we ought to cut this sentence in half and interpret each part separately. But *that* is my argument.\n\n>In this country we have things called constitutional rights. They can't be violated. Guns are one of those rights. That's the end of the story unless you can get enough support to amend the Constitution.\n\nYou don't need the support to amend the Constitution. You just need to change your perspective on the subject. Like it or not, that's how the system works.\n\nAlso, side note because I'm really tired of this argument.\n\n>Sure, black people now commit violent crimes at a far higher rate than any other race\n\nViolent crime is correlated to race to a certain degree. It is much more tightly correlated to low socio-economic status. Yes, 13-50 is true. (Or true enough, that study is way out of date.) Ever look at the ratio of people in poverty to the amount of crime they commit? It's many times higher a ratio. Black people are more often in poverty, which is due to historical precedent of policies such as redlining. Pointing at their race as though it correlates to violent crime is either ignorant of reality or just dishonest and either way this argument needs to die so we can focus on the actual causes of violent crimes and the solutions to stopping them.\n\nThanks for bearing with my tangent.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jlzbttc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzc85g",
                    "author": "sto_brohammed",
                    "body": "I'm not necessarily a gun control opponent in theory but in practice I'm extremely leery about most measures and I agree 100% that American gun culture is a problem. In fact, the gun culture is why I'm leery. I'm on the far left, for context. So it's not a question of necessarily changing our minds but it's a case of the two ideas you find contradictory being held by reasonable people.\n\nThe US is on an extremely dangerous trajectory right now. Violence against marginalized people is on the rise and the rhetoric is at utterly insane levels. The police generally don't give a shit about these communities and not infrequently the people committing this sort of violence are off duty cops or very close to them. These communities are already at a high level of risk and I'm afraid it's going continue to rise to some very, very dangerous levels. If the cops won't protect these communities, who will? Gun control historically has effected these communities disproportionately and many, especially black, Asian and LGBTQ have been arming themselves at a fairly high rate since 2016 but it's still far behind the far-right. Of course that's not to say any of those communities are in lockstep of course, that would be silly, but there are large portions who are arming themselves. In this climate I'm skeptical of sweeping measures like assault weapon bans because the far-right is already heavily armed. If they weren't and the police weren't I'd be more ok with it but none of those are the case. We don't get to choose the world we live in.\n\nSo what are these people doing with these guns? Here are some articles on the subject. Keep in mind that left wing \"gun culture\" such as it is is very different from the broader American one. Here guns are tools, they're not some kind of cultural identifier or symbol of masculinity or, which I think shouldn't have to be pointed as they're leftists, patriotism.\n\n[https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/tenacious-unicorn-ranch-colorado](https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/tenacious-unicorn-ranch-colorado)\n\n[https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/club-q-lgbtq-armed-self-defense/](https://theintercept.com/2022/11/29/club-q-lgbtq-armed-self-defense/)\n\n[https://dallasvoice.com/drag-in-the-suburbs/](https://dallasvoice.com/drag-in-the-suburbs/)\n\n[https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/john-brown-gun-club-armed-anti-fascist-1234733200/](https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/john-brown-gun-club-armed-anti-fascist-1234733200/)\n\n[https://www.wbap.com/2022/07/22/advocates-for-homeless-block-encampment-sweep/](https://www.wbap.com/2022/07/22/advocates-for-homeless-block-encampment-sweep/)\n\n[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dallas-drag-brunch-texas-protest-b2155624.html](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/dallas-drag-brunch-texas-protest-b2155624.html)\n\n[https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/22/if-others-have-rifles-well-have-rifles-why-leftist-groups-are-taking-up-arms](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/22/if-others-have-rifles-well-have-rifles-why-leftist-groups-are-taking-up-arms)\n\nThere are a ton of other incidents but they don't always get press. There are also a ton of other articles. There are also a growing number of leftist pro-gun groups like the Socialist Rifle Association, Yellow Peril Tactical, the Latino Rifle Association, the Huey P. Newton Gun Club, the John Brown Gun Club (they're more a direct action group) and more.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm0bzyq",
                    "author": "Im_Talking",
                    "body": "But guns have been a cause of this divisiveness (I'm not saying they are THE cause). People are arming themselves because of the fear that others are arming themselves.\n\nTherefore you can't say that a cause for a societal ill is also a solution.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jlzc85g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzczdg",
                    "author": "CeilingFanUpThere",
                    "body": "https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110239487/most-gun-owners-favor-modest-restrictions-but-deeply-distrust-government-poll-fi\n\n\"More than 8 in 10 gun owners said they are in favor of universal background checks for all gun sales, including private sales and at gun shows. That's similar to the almost 9 in 10 of all Americans who say so in other surveys.\"\n\nGun control opponents are mistrustful--of government, of changing demographics, of people who don't value guns the way they do.\n\nThis suggests that if they had unlimited power and control of the government, and were confident they would forever have unlimited power, then they would not fear pushing forward on gun regulations, because they would feel confident in their power to increase or decrease gun regulations and the enforcement of those regulations in the future.\n\nThe problem is actually that 20% of Americans feel threatened by the way the status quo is changing.\n\n1. It's harder to pass the younger generations their own set of beliefs and convince them to not think critically about those beliefs, because younger generations are caring less about organized religion. It used to be exceptionally easy 50-100 years ago.\n2. Immigrants that are conservative and inclined to join the Republican party often come from countries with governments that are much more repressive and don't fear the American government like gun control opponents do. So even when they have all the other conservative beliefs, they aren't always reliable voters because they sometimes vote against the Republican candidate if they think the candidate is too much of a warmonger, or is crazy, or is an idiot.\n3. There are unknown consequences to them and their power whenever the country moves closer to equality and personal autonomy for all people.\n\nSo they play politics really hard with an 'ends justify the means' attitude.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlze1h8",
                    "author": "doomsdaysushi",
                    "body": "This is untrue. \n\nFirst off the people that are gun control opponents are not the problem.  The deaths that occur in Chicago, St. Louis, Baltimore, etc are not committed by NRA members. \n\nDo you want the policy that would reduce gun homicides and would be supported by gun advocates?  Stop and Frisk. \n\nStop everyone and search them for a gun. If you have a gun and are not legally allowed to have a gun, then you get arrested.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlziysw",
                    "author": "Selethorme",
                    "body": "Besides that cities aren\u2019t the primary number of gun deaths, stop and frisk was pretty blatantly racist policy. It didn\u2019t stop everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jlze1h8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlze7gu",
                    "author": "Wyrdeone",
                    "body": "It's important to understand that gun control opponents are not a monolithic group. \n\nThere is a difference between folks who own guns to hunt, or because their geographic location makes it a practical investment, compared to the stereotypical gun-fetishist who owns 50+ firearms and spends most of their time taking pictures of them for social media.\n\nThere are many gun control opponents in my state of Vermont, but we have just managed to enact some common sense restrictions such as waiting periods, just in the last legislative session.\n\nSo, while the majority of rural vermonters are not about to give their guns up to the government or compromise on their constitutional right, we are capable of agreeing, as sensible people, that more needs to be done to curb gun crime.\n\nYou're not ever gonna convince the guy who is sexually attracted to AR-15s, but that is FAR from every gun owner in the nation.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm00yrw",
                    "author": "UserOfSlurs",
                    "body": "\n>that more needs to be done to curb gun crime.\n\nWhy should I care specifically about gun crime when all available evidence shows that reducing it doesn't save lives?",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "jlze7gu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzg9xl",
                    "author": "pigeonshual",
                    "body": "I think that many gun control opponents are specifically open to arguments about americas gun culture, which many see as the actual problem, as opposed to the gun laws. Switzerland, for example, is held up by advocates as a case where gun ownership is extremely widespread, but gun violence is low, and many argue that culture has a lot to do with it.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm0cvbb",
                    "author": "CeilingFanUpThere",
                    "body": "[https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/](https://impakter.com/why-gun-ownership-switzerland-not-same-us/)\n\nIf gun control opponents wanted to adopt Switzerland's gun laws, which are described in this article, progressives would get everything they've been trying to negotiate for and then some.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jlzg9xl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzi9e5",
                    "author": "_Vervayne",
                    "body": "Most people that want guns understand the problems with gun culture , their problem lies with the facts that the laws that are being placed as \u201cgun control laws\u201d don\u2019t really do much to actually address the negative parts of \u201cgun culture\u201d most gun laws advertised as \u201ccommon sense\u201d are actually laws that hurt the carrying law abiding citizen more than it actually stops / suicides.\n\n I bring up this first because it actually accounts for most of the firearm related deaths annual \nGetting guns \u201c off the street \u201c doesn\u2019t actually address the suicide problem. When you\u2019re speaking of a \u201cgun control\u201d opponent you are speaking about a law abiding citizen who\u2019s legally allowed to own their firearm . Most gun crime that happens occurs with a firearm being posses illegally ..",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzpraa",
                    "author": "Selethorme",
                    "body": ">\t\u201ccommon sense\u201d are actually laws that hurt the carrying law abiding citizen more than it actually stops / suicides.\n\nCare to detail how? Background check requirements don\u2019t hurt them. Requiring transactions occur through an FFL don\u2019t hurt them. Registration doesn\u2019t hurt them. Licensure doesn\u2019t hurt them. Waiting periods don\u2019t hurt them.\n\n>\tMost gun crime that happens occurs with a firearm being posses illegally ..\n\nThis is just flatly untrue on a logical level. All guns being bought are originated through what would seem to be a legal transaction. \n\n>\tI bring up this first because it actually accounts for most of the firearm related deaths annual Getting guns \u201c off the street \u201c doesn\u2019t actually address the suicide problem. \n\nWaiting periods do exactly that. Licensure does that.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "jlzi9e5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlziflr",
                    "author": "MikeOxmoll_",
                    "body": "You should be qualified to own and carry firearms. If you can't pass qualifications you shouldn't have them. Nothing spooks me more than seeing some idiot open carrying and touching their piece all the time.\n\nEveryone's also angry all the fucking time and have zero deescalation skills.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm13evc",
                    "author": "That-Possibility-427",
                    "body": "Best point thus far and as a father and gun owner I couldn't agree with you more.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jlziflr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jlzjs29",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Anonon_990 \u2013 your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: \r\n\r\n> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Anonon_990&message=Anonon_990%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20post\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/-/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.). \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm08odw",
                    "author": "Stillwater215",
                    "body": "Here\u2019s the thing about the \u201cmajority favor background checks\u201d argument: how many of them would support criminal charges against a seller for failing to complete a background check? I would guess that the number would fall substantially.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm15w6y",
                    "author": "That-Possibility-427",
                    "body": ">would guess that the number would fall substantially.\n\nThere in lies the problem. Your guess as in your assumption. What factual information are you basing your \"guess\" on? Isn't it much more logical to assume that if the majority favor background checks that they would also support whatever consequences that those who fail to comply would receive?",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm08odw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm09wre",
                    "author": "beltalowda_oye",
                    "body": "Idk man I support more gun control but I also think they don't do a whole lot because most people who support gun control like I do have no idea how rampant black market gun trade is. You can't throw a rock without hitting someone selling guns off instagram or telegram. It's so rampant, every recent facility I worked, there was always at least one person who was selling guns on the side. I'm talking actual glocks with mags and ammo. Entire kits shipped across state line. And these aren't 3d printed garbage either. \n\nIf there's an incentive to make money, people will do it. You can own a glock w/ ammo for the measly price of 350-550. So yes absolutely there is a massive gun problem in the USA and people aren't even aware of it tbh.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm0bfik",
                    "author": "SnooSeagulls6564",
                    "body": "Fair. But a lot of people misunderstand the gun problem on both sides, it\u2019s not mass shootings, it\u2019s the gun culture already ingrained in the American culture. \n\nI might be going on a tangent but I want to explain something I feel not many people here have seen or can attest too. People will flip out when it\u2019s found that a kid brings (not uses) a gun to school in a \u201c\u201dgood neighborhood\u201d\u201d; it\u2019ll make the news.  This shit is commonplace in areas that are neglected \n\nMy high school used to bus in kids from an area a little farther away that was much less well off then us.  My PE teacher told us a story, he found a kid with a gun that fell out his bag, and he explained that he needed it, that he was so scared from where he came from and the people around him that it was a necessity.  THATS the gun culture here. \n\nPeople seem to generalize and think it\u2019s all the hicks with the guns that want to defend that right, and that couldn\u2019t be farther from the truth. There\u2019s too many guns in this country, and it\u2019s almost a lost cause because hard reforms suggested that prevent \u201c\u201dlaw abiding citizens\u201d\u201d from getting them would do so little and may in turn harm others.  It\u2019s too late for these types of reforms I believe. \n\nThat being said small reform like background checks red flags etc should still be implemented. But even if the US were to ban ALL guns (something not being argued often but let\u2019s use the extreme), there would only be continued violence, you just probably wouldn\u2019t here about it.\n\n(But on a sidenote too suicides? Assuming they\u2019re purposeful I don\u2019t really think you can\u2019t count that as an effect of guns, another way will be found. I\u2019ve known suicidal people with guns, to them it was only a particular option)",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm0moaf",
                    "author": "wilfordbrimley778",
                    "body": "Schools and guns have been around since america started. Drugs used to treat things like ADHD and schizophrenia are relatively new however. And almost all mass shootings happen from someone on one of those drugs",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm3d9fv",
                    "author": "Selethorme",
                    "body": "That\u2019s just not accurate.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm0moaf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm0t5v0",
                    "author": "bandt4ever",
                    "body": "Gun control is one of the most successful dividing lines the Oiligarchs have used to divide America into two opposing sides. No one but the most extreme leftists really wants to ban guns in America all together. That would be foolish. Common sense regulations, sure, good plan, but the NRA who is mostly funded by the Oiligarchs and fully in their control. Their function is to divide the country so that we won't notice the Oiligarchs and the fact that they control our supposedly free country and reap all of the benefits of our labors.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm0z7u1",
                    "author": "gslavik",
                    "body": ">  A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\".\n\nSandy Hook was in 2012 and one of the more recent widely reported massacre. If you do a search, it won't take too much effort to find similar stories that go back decades. The only difference between those stories and Sandy Hook is that we have many more media channels (including various discussion boards and social media type places) to spread the news much wider and much quicker.\n\nThere was an interview with the journalists who uncovered all the Nixon stuff that eventually caused him to resign (to not go through the impeachment and senate trial process). They were asked about today's media (I think Twitter was mentioned) and they said that their stories would've unfolded much much quicker.\n\n> I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nYou should look up the Columbine shooting coverage (which interestingly enough was supposed to be a bombing with guns being used to kill people who were running from the blasts, but the bombs never went off). I believe that was the first mass murder that received such wide coverage. There is also a theory of media contagion effect playing into this (one of the reasons why suicides aren't usually reported on the news and why there are studies showing that there was an increase in suicides in the few months after Robin Williams' suicide was reported on).\n\n> Regardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nThe issue I take with this viewpoint is twofold. Most gun control proposals are usually an attempt to restrict guns when an outright ban wouldn't work. But the ban is still the ultimate goal. In some European countries, where the general access to self-owned (as opposed to gun/range owned) guns is stricter than most of US, they do not have outright bans to everything. For example, in NYC, you can get a rifle and shotgun permit which takes 6 months (before COVID19), but you cannot own any air/spring powered weapons (NYC Administrative code 10-131, if you are interested). Under many assault weapon bans, even some of the types of guns used for international shooting competitions are illegal (because magazine doesn't get inserted into the grip). Then we look at countries that have registrations (like Canada) and when someone smuggles guns across the border (another issue) that wouldn't be legal anyway, guns still get restricted there even more.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm11ydq",
                    "author": "Titty_Slicer_5000",
                    "body": "Imagine for a second that a group of people want to enact something called \u201cfree from reasonable search and seizure control\u201d.  They don\u2019t like that police need probable cause to search people\u2019s persons or effects and that if a search done without probable cause turns up evidence that 100% proves that the person they searched committed a crime, any crime (even murder), that that evidence can not be used in trial against that person.  They would point to known murderers and rapists being let go \u201con technicalities\u201d and going on to rape and murder again.  Would it matter how many murderers and rapists were being let go and murdering and raping again to you?  Would there be some number where you could say \u201cokay let\u2019s infringe on people\u2019s 4th amendment right\u201d?  I hope not.  \n\nWhat about the 5th amendment\u2019s protection against double jeopardy?  Would there be a number of murderers and rapists who get acquitted at trial only to have evidence come out later that proves they are 100% guilty that would make you say \u201cokay let\u2019s infringe on people\u2019s 5th amendment rights\u201d?  I hope not.  \n\nLet\u2019s go to a more realistic example.  The rise of fake news, inflammatory news, and people sharing inflammatory news has led to a serious problem in the US with misinformation and political divide.  You could reasonably argue it led to tens of thousands if not even hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from covid.  It is, quite literally, a threat to out democracy.  Should the government be allowed to silence news stations it deems \u201cinflammatory\u201d.  Should people not be allowed to share news the government deems \u201cfake news\u201d or \u201cmisleading\u201d on facebook and social media.  Again, I hope you answer this question in the negative. \n\nHaving individual rights comes with certain problems that are inherent in how these rights work and how they restrict the tools government has to deal with problems.  That is the price of freedom.  There are certainly countries where the people give up individual liberties when problems arise so that government can more easily and more effectively tackle those problems. Those countries eventually turn into authoritarian hellholes.  \n\nIt is no different, in my view, when it comes to the 2nd amendment.  Guns are the great equalizer.  Every human has a right to self defense.  And in my view that also means every human has the right to the proper tools for self defense (you can of course lose rights through due process of law).  People do not need to be athletes and martial art experts to have a decent chance at defending themselves or their family.  The weak should not just be expected to have no defense when attacked by the strong.  The people must have the ability to tell their government \u201cno\u201d.  They must have some kind of *real power* to do that, not just words on paper that give power only because the government allows it to be so.  A well armed and well trained population has *real power* to tell its government \u201cno\u201d, whether the government allows it or not.  Restrictions that make it much more difficult to get guns, get ammo, train with guns, severely limit the type of guns you can get, etc. , are all restrictions that remove that power from the people.  History is too replete with examples of government turning on its people in a brutal and authoritarian way, and the people having no real means to fight back.  The Tiananmen Square Massacre is a great example of this.  The Holocaust, another.  Stalin\u2019s rule of terror, yet another.\n\nIt\u2019s not that I don\u2019t think gun violence is a problem.   It\u2019s that I think that the government must address this problem *within the confines of the US constitution*, just like it addressed any other problem.  Gun control is just easy political points for people who don\u2019t know jack shit about guns and are all too happy to be nannied by the government.  But it doesn\u2019t get at the root of the issue, which is what high level policy choices led us here (namely drug prohibition, the war on drugs, a history of racism, and \u201ctough on crime policies\u201d).  Reversing the effects of those high level policies would, realistically, take decades.  The average voter just does not have that kind of attention span.  They want everything \u201cnow now now\u201d, and it\u2019s all based on fear and ignorance.  Just like the introduction of drug prohibition and the drug war was based on fear and ignorance (and racism).  And yet we still haven\u2019t learned.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm2dvb0",
                    "author": "OfTheAtom",
                    "body": "If there were advancements in tazer technology, or even where it currently stands, wouldn't the idea of the Equalizer be met with this technology? \n\nThe issue being that bombs, and automatic guns are seen as too easily capable of mass destruction beyond what is needed to deter/stop harm from coming to an individual. And that semi-auto is also, just too capable of killing more than one attacker beyond the scenario people will actually find themselves in.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm11ydq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm1lwyq",
                    "author": "offwivisead",
                    "body": "Nope .their whole family could be blown away and they still wouldn't change their minds..would they?",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm1pqe4",
                    "author": "CP1870",
                    "body": "It's rejected because being able to own a gun is an individual constitutional right just like the right to free speech is. If we just start ignoring the constitution then the constitution becomes meaningless. The gun control side main goal is to ban and confiscate all private firearms, why would someone for the second amendment EVER give up ANYTHING to them?! I'll use the recent gun control \"comprise\" as an example: in the \"comprise\" the Republicans only got some vague mental health funding while the Democrats got almost everything they wanted. Not even a week later what do the Democrats do? Oh they try to pass an AWB that would have made every single gun owner a felon overnight! Yes sorry but F the gun control side, I honestly can't wait for SCOTUS to rule the AR15 is a protected weapon and that AWB are unconstitutional. I also can't wait for them to gut Chevron Deference and remove basically all the power the ATF has",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jmreezc",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": ">The gun control side main goal is to ban and confiscate all private firearms, why would someone for the second amendment EVER give up ANYTHING to them?!\n\n\"The gun advocate side main goal is to legalise all private firearms for everyone regardless of age, criminal al record or mental health, why would someone for public safety EVER give up ANYTHING to them?!\"",
                    "date": "2023-06-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm1pqe4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm1vn6f",
                    "author": "beautiflywings",
                    "body": "For starters, nothing ever great comes out of the government being the only ones armed. Second, people who already don't care about following the law will always find a firearm. Lastly, I believe that guns are a great equalizer. I want my 5'4, 100 lb niece to be able to protect herself against a 6' plus guy.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm2752o",
                    "author": "authorityiscancer222",
                    "body": "I\u2019ll change my mind on gun control when they take away the guns of cops.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm4a7jp",
                    "author": "Dorbz95",
                    "body": "I hear the cops in some countries in europe don't even carry guns. Very low chance for the bad guy to have one.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm2752o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm29h1d",
                    "author": "Bfitness93",
                    "body": "I think it's the other way around. The facts simply don't support what you say and I'll give you many examples as to why gun control is BS. All we need to do is break down the data. Maybe you never heard these arguments before.\n\nEveryone in America needs to follow the gun laws in their local area. We can see that regardless of the area, each demographic commits gun crime at far different rates. Men and women perhaps the biggest, Men commit FAR more gun crime than women do despite following the same gun laws. Whites commit more gun crime than Asians, Hispanics commit more gun crime than whites, blacks commit gun crime more than Hispanics. 21yr Olds commit more gun crime than 51yr Olds. If it were gun control than these statistics would be even. But clearly there's a much different problem it's the people not the guns.\n\nIf we go back in time when some European country's had similar gun laws to America, European country's still virtually saw no gun crime. Compare the city of London to NYC. Same exact gun laws back in the 50s, the 2 were the exact same. London saw virtually no gun crime. NYC so a lot more.\n\nWhich brings us over to the time line of gun crime. In the 60s the gun crime started to rise and got worse and worse until the late 80s to early 90s when it peaked. It started decreasing since the early 90s. All of which fell under the same gun control laws. \n\nMore guns are in circulation now in 2023 than in the late 80s, far more. But we experience far less gun crime despite guns being much easier to get and more guns being in circulation. I can just refute gun control all day long. \n\nWe see in the United States that gun crime varies and that some of our most heavily gun regulated areas have some of the worst gun crime. Which brings us back to country vs country. Brazil and Russia have much stricter gun laws than the United States but experience much higher levels of gun crime. Even in terms of class, the Asian lower class commits less gun crime than the black middle class. America is the richest country on Earth, our lower class is the upper class of the planet. But we don't experience the lowest levels of crime so it's not a poverty issue and to refute that again we see that gun crime was worse in the 90s despite being much richer in the 90s compared to the 50s.\n\nGuns save a lot of lives too through deterrence and self defense. You use them to hunt and have recreational activities with them. They're used to protect us against government tyranny. \n\nILLEGAL handguns commit the vast majority of crime. So why go after the guns that have almost nothing to do with crime? It makes no sense. \n\nYour kids have a better chance at being struck by lightening than dying from a legally purchased firearm. I know you see someone kill a few kids, it's all over the media and you think this is happening like crazy over here. It's not. You're far more likely to die during a car accident than shot by a gun by an extremely large margin. \n\nLook at the war on drugs here. Look at prohibition. Not only does it not work but it makes things worse. You want the black market to open up and all the fun things that come out of there? People will get the guns anyway. Same with heroin in illegal and people still get their hands on that easily. It's pointless. \n\nPeople cherry pick and like to compare America to some country's in Europe that already had a low level of gun crime even when guns were legalized. They base everything off that and leave all other data out. This is either confirmation bias or the dunning Kruger affect, you don't know what you don't know. Or ignorance. \n\nSo its not that people who are pro gun have stances that can't be changed no matter what you say to them its just that the opposing side makes easily refutable arguments.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm4c7pt",
                    "author": "Nucaranlaeg",
                    "body": "> Look at prohibition. Not only does it not work but it makes things worse.\n\nProhibition didn't make things worse.  If you look at total alcohol-related violent crime, it fell off a cliff during prohibition.  Some of that can be attributable to broader trends, so it's not obvious that prohibition made things better, but it didn't make things worse.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm29h1d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm2ggfh",
                    "author": "23663456",
                    "body": "Ok, I want to dispell a few myths I've been seeing crop up here.\n\n   1. We already have background checks. If you're a felon, no gun for you. If you want to buy a gun, you are legally required to go through a background check. There are no loopholes, just people breaking the law, and people not enforcing it properly.\n\n   2. (The following is not to minimize the tragedy of, and the suffering that comes with loosing a child or witnessing a shooting at your school. It is simply giving context) Many seem to be under the impression that school shootings are the majority of gun violence here in the States. This is not true. Most deaths from gun violence occur in intercity gang violence, and domestic shootings elsewhere. School shootings, and really mass shootings in general, actually only make up about 10% of gun violence in the country.\n\n   3. Many firearms used in mass shootings were obtained illegally, and if they weren't, the shooter often had nothing in their past to suggest their future actions. If a monster wishes to do harm, make the gun illegal won't stop them.\n\n   4. While banning guns may drop gun violence, it will increase violence in general. We've seen this in the UK. Yes, no more shootings, but stabbings, and assaults increase to new heights(though to be fair different cultures exist in these countries and are likely the most responsible). If there are no guns, the school shooter will just get a knife.\n\n   5. Many have said, or implied, that gun owners don't care when innocent people are shot. They do. We all do. We merely disagree with how to fix the issue. \n   This is why issues like this, abortion, racial discrimination, and gender equality continue to be issues. No one talks, they just call the other guy a monster. If we were to leave insults at the door, grow thicker skin, and talk to each other like adults, we could probably fix most of these issues in a heartbeat. But we don't. We act like children who want the last cookie. All this will lead to is further division, and most likely, even more death.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm3bhjx",
                    "author": "Selethorme",
                    "body": "1.\tFactually untrue. Private sales don\u2019t require one in most states.\n2.\tthat doesn\u2019t mean school shootings aren\u2019t a problem we can try to solve\n3.\tthis is factually untrue. 75% of mass shooters acquire their guns legally. Making it harder for them to access it absolutely can impact their actions\n4.\tthis is just a misleading correlation vs causation argument",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "jm2ggfh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm2rmix",
                    "author": "Sneakydivil32",
                    "body": "Let's not forget that we're talking about the least intelligent and most obnoxiously idiotic race of people on earth here. I'm suprised more of them don't accidentally blow their own brains out on the daily tbh.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "js9e0d5",
                    "author": "soft_pretzel_twist",
                    "body": "Actually make a good point or get out of here.",
                    "date": "2023-07-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm2rmix"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm493de",
                    "author": "Dorbz95",
                    "body": "They are convinced that mass shootings are \"statistically insignificant\" and call you emotional if you think otherwise. They are robotic and lack any ounce of humanity. They only use libertarian logic, semantics, pedantry, and disingenuous tactics when debating gun control. If you back them into a corner they will just say \"it's a right\" \"shall not be infringed\".",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm4u6ce",
                    "author": "p5219163",
                    "body": "Pro Gun guy here. I highly disagree. There's plenty of arguments that could get me to change my opinions.\n\nThe issue is none of these arguments exist. There's no modern day statistics that paint firearms as a glaring problem. Furthermore, firearm ownership is protected by the constitution.\n\nHow hypothetically if that was never the case, and firearms were an actual issue in every day life. Arguments could be made.\n\nHowever that isn't the case. \n\nThis is a bit like saying there's no way to get an atheist to believe in God. Well there is, god could talk to him. Issue is that isn't going to happen.",
                    "date": "2023-05-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm76wal",
                    "author": "Jew_of_house_Levi",
                    "body": "\"racism\"\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIf a significant amount of minorities started purchasing firearms openly, than that may cause some conservative panic and make them believe that \"gun culture\" is a problem, at least in minority circles.",
                    "date": "2023-05-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jm8ucbg",
                    "author": "A6000user",
                    "body": "It's quite simple really;  the real problem with gun violence in the United States occurs in the inner cities and with the use of mostly illegally obtained and owned guns. Those that oppose gun control, for the most part, are legal, law-abiding persons whose only connection to the violence that the media chooses to use to focus on for the sake of  gun control is that the assailant used a gun similar to the ones owned by those opposed to gun control.\n\nHowever, if the media were to truly address the issue of gun violence in the United States, they would have to admit many facts that correlate largely to minority populated liberal areas; that goes against the current media narrative.\n\nThis leads to the other aspect which strengthens the resolve of those opposed to gun control; the realization that there is an overwhelmingly biased media and political climate in the United States that is willing to lie about one of the biggest problems this country faces all for the sake of taking the guns away from law abiding citizens. To what end is unknown, but it is frightening.",
                    "date": "2023-05-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jmrffci",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "> However, if the media were to truly address the issue of gun violence in the United States, they would have to admit many facts that correlate largely to minority populated liberal areas; that goes against the current media narrative.\n\nAnd what facts are those?",
                    "date": "2023-06-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jm8ucbg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jmb1f9h",
                    "author": "realistic_dreamer42",
                    "body": " I also don't live in the US, but in a Southern African ex-colony that gets in the news a lot for government oppression etc. This country does have strict gun laws and the police generally don't carry guns, but please don't use this as an excuse to 'prove' gun control opponents and claim that the country I am from would be different if there were no gun controls, as bad as Zimbabwe is it'd likely be even worse if there weren't gun controls. \n\nI grew up around guns and though I discovered I have a nature that doesn't do well with murdering wildlife (what I did kill when I was young is now a burden on me) I am, unfortunately, naturally talented with a long rifle and 12 gauge and when I did hunt there was no pleasure or enjoyment in it for me so I did it in a psychologically 'cold' state and suffered afterward for it (no shaky hands 'buck fever', talented stalking ability and dislike for causing suffering made me lethal and capable of making point to point instant kills that'd make a trained sniper sit up and pay attention to my unfortunate skill). After my Father passed (suicide by gun), I made no effort to take over his guns and allowed the police to take my guns as well, so I haven't had guns in my home for twenty years.   \n\nI reflect now, that due to stresses in my personal life, had I had guns - I would either have ended up in jail for shooting some of my neighbors dogs, or I would have taken my life by gun. Whichever came first. So for me, personally, even though I could have, having guns would have been a bad idea - but I recognized that and self regulated. \n\nInterestingly though, I was unfortunate to find myself trapped in bad 'elitist' private schools where teachers and the entire system were exploiting, damaging, the children in horrifying ways which proved impossible to bring to light and I was obliged as a child to strategize using guns (I had access to!) to murder some predatory teachers and bring the hidden problem out in the open - of course it would have cost me my life, but the point is I was on the margin of becoming a school 'mass' shooter as a solution to a real world problem and I'm a profoundly talented strategist that goes calm in intense situations so it is likely I would have done an awful lot of damage before I got taken down which would have taken hours given the response times in the arena I was in. \n\nOf course I never did it and if I had gone the violent route there were more effective ways available to me (explosive devices, poisons etc) - but through consideration of guns as a solution I came to understand the problem with guns, they get a power over people, it is as if the 'want' to be used and it is just too easy for guns to be used as a quick solution in an 'in the moment' circumstance (like shooting my neighbors dog on the night I finally can't take it anymore). \n\nI don't consider the argument for and against guns to really be about guns - it is about social environment and the pressures contained within. If people have realistic protection from the kind of threat that may cause them to need to consider retaliation, then having no gun control is going to be dangerous. Getting illegal weapons is always possible, but at least there is a time period for reconsideration between getting overly stressed and snapping and going and seeking a weapon - having guns immediately available just makes it too easy. \n\nIn addition, people appear to have become confused about the realities of what happens when bullets start flying - I noticed that when the US NRA and anti-gun control advocates make arguments about supposedly sensible civilians and police bearing arms to protect society, they tend to make 'perfect' scenario arguments that assume that 'bad guy/gal become public danger, the good guy/gal citizens get their guns out and shoot the baddies' - in the real world, very few people are going to be accurate or circumspect. Furthermore sidearms (which I'm useless with, they're cool to hold and play with, but not really effective) and are only really accurate to use at suicide distances. Every bullet in the air is another bullet that can harm innocent bystanders and people who think they are brave and heroic and would carry guns out of a need to 'protect' society tend to be the same people who would panic and start spraying bullets around - personally I wouldn't want to be carrying a gun, because I know I would never survive harming an innocent (and the 'bad' guys probably qualify as being socially sick, which my personality treats as 'innocent though dangerous'). \n\nFurther interestingly, I worked as a contractor for private security companies in Iraq and Afghanistan for about five years over a decade ago (desk jockey and strategic management roles so I didn't carry guns, though I could have, left that to the security operatives excepting for one contract where I kept an AK beside my bed - the zone I was in was too exposed, I had no choice). So I got to be in an environment where pretty much everybody carried guns with high expectation that they may need to use them - what caught me most is the effect on the people I worked with who did end up in firefights and put insurgents down, it hurt them, *badly.* Could see it in their eyes, their body language, hear it in their voices - terrible, terrible pain. And these were trained ex-military operatives of high standard in justifiable shootings in a war zone and taking a life tore them to pieces and gave them a cancer on their soul that will never wash out. \n\n*But my personal take on the gun control argument in the US - it's pointless, you're not going to stop people carrying guns in the US as is the tradition of the country or prevent mass shootings through politics or making new gun control laws or having endless barneys between the NRA and gun control advocates. Stop wasting your time on it and give the time toward overarching solutions to the social problems of the human community, institutional abuse and clearing up the confusion gangs of sickening, false and dangerous politicians, teachers, preachers, mental health functionaries and other exploitive business creatures playing with the life of the human community and your gun argument will resolve itself by extension.*\n\nIf the US spent even a little of the time it spends arguing about unwinnable arguments like gun control on attempting to understand the truths about countries it interferes with in a shallow self serving manner, like Zimbabwe, then my country would probably be in a much better place rather than suffering from being infected with other countries failures. I wouldn't take US citizens guns away, *I'd block the muzzle on your politicians' mouth guns, take away your* ***money*** *ammunition, depose your gunpowder corporations and put a safety catch on your International exploitation.*",
                    "date": "2023-05-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jmps8ae",
                    "author": "Annual_Ad_1536",
                    "body": "They aren't changing their minds because nobody's offered any innovative proposals. They just repeat the same thing every year.\n\nHere's what would instantly change their minds.\n\n1. (secretly) replace all gun inventory with networked smart weapons.\n2. Inform the public that to curb issues with older guns, the government will buy back every gun for $40,000 each.\n3. The gun rights supporters will then all buy the new weapons. Realizing that they are more badass than the guns they previously had, they will initially be pissed, but eventually will be happier with the new ones than the old ones.\n\nWham bam, no more mass shootings with legal guns.\n\nI should mention, a small contingent of conservatives will now just buy illegal guns, but the point of the question was convincing gun rights supporters of anti-gun violence policy, and this pretty much does that.",
                    "date": "2023-06-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jolc55l",
                    "author": "Specific-Trouble1599",
                    "body": "632 people were killed in \u201cmass shootings\u201d (more than 4 in one place/shooting) in the US in 2022. 10,000 (1000 children) people are killed in drunk driving accidents. Are they going to ban all alcohol? Of course not!",
                    "date": "2023-06-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "joxsijk",
                    "author": "IcyCharacter6527",
                    "body": "You are right, but I believe it to be more of a macho-fetish thing. Like expensive cars etc. Makes them feel like they have power, are someone.\n\nThe other \"reasons\" are just make-believe.",
                    "date": "2023-06-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpufyt5",
                    "author": "AnotherLoudAsshole",
                    "body": "Incorrect. \n\nI am an American gun maker who is devoted to firearms rights as if it is my religion. I say that without any irony. \n\nWhat it would take to change my mind is unbiased statistics and for the last two centuries of human history to not be filled with people murdered by governments shortly after disarming. *You don't have those arguments, because those arguments are not aligned with reality.*\n\nIf you're really interested in changing your view, how about you ask yourself \"what would it take for me to realize that my opinions on firearms might be based on propagandistic bullshit?\"",
                    "date": "2023-06-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jq9bzr6",
                    "author": "Better-Strategy-3846",
                    "body": "Could be worse we could be dunce...to say we know about something that goes on in another country while also admitting that we don't live there like someone second none of what was said there is true The gun crime is actually horribly cherry picked data to make it go in their favor in argument third shootings happen every few years or a couple of months as in 8 to 9 months at shortest third It's constitutionally protected if you had any common sense you would know that's how our country is run by the Constitution It is above all... And first We like having our rights and we're not going to live like any other s***** countries around the world like Mexico Canada Australia Britain London... All communist control to where the police are even a part of the government in corrupt that in our livelihood was almost stolen from us back then and the only thing that saved us was guns Oh and what happened what did the government try to do that we permanently kept guns in our culture.... Tried to steal them from us so they could take over our land \ud83e\udd2f",
                    "date": "2023-07-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jqacrkc",
                    "author": "Slight-Ad7863",
                    "body": "I JUST CAME HERE TO MENTION THAT I JUST PURCHASED AN EXTENDED CLIP, SO THAT IF ANYONE WANTS TO FEEL SMART, THEY CAN REMIND ME THAT IT US A MAGAZINE, AND ASK ME WHY I AM YELLING.",
                    "date": "2023-07-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jqpwnd5",
                    "author": "Joegannonlct",
                    "body": "There really isn't. These people are INSANE. Some of them truly want no rules, regulations, or common sense.",
                    "date": "2023-07-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jtdsrmh",
                    "author": "Better-Strategy-3846",
                    "body": "Because it's not it's the person who does it I mean are we going to call cars if they hit someone or ever used as a weapon assault vehicles \ud83d\ude02.... The gun didn't pick itself up and find someone to cause bodily harm to did it... Now it might have had the action to kill but it was not it itself that caused it It was a person to holding it... Also fun fact The recent gun laws don't really work that well especially in places like Chicago is because there's no punishment for breaking into cars and stealing guns or people's houses \ud83e\udd26\u200d\u2642\ufe0f some of those states are stupid in my opinion for putting in legislation that lets criminals break the law get guns when they're not supposed to have them even though they say gun laws and gun control works.... Also why aren't criminals punished for breaking into steal a weapon to commit extreme harm with why is there no extra prison sentence although I guess I'm pretty stupid for saying that because they don't really punish them in those states anyway \ud83e\udd14....",
                    "date": "2023-07-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvappir",
                    "author": "Better-Strategy-3846",
                    "body": "Kind of like there's no argument that would prove sheep ding dongs that say killing a baby is okay but owning a gun isn't... Yeah sounds real stupid when you try to compare murdering a newborn that wasn't conceived by RAPE or any other disgusting thing... Or the almost as gross incest... But yeah you want to own a gun you're apparently the bad guy... And left us always wonder why they're the butt of every joke and made fun of \ud83d\ude10... You can't pretend to be on the moral high ground and then blatantly throw it to the side because your argument isn't convenient to using anymore... Its like are you trying to gas light people or something I might be an ass but at least I'm honest... Also I don't think I'll be taking any advice that's supposed to be intelligent from individuals who voted for a guy who gave automatic weapons to civilians in another country and most of our tax money and criminals and an entire terrorist organization \ud83e\udd23",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvj1vrs",
                    "author": "wholelottaslatttt",
                    "body": "How will gun control work if criminals can 3D print guns and ammo while regular citizens are restricted to protecting themselves? Should be common sense but it\u2019s no longer common nowadays.",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2vrjg5",
                    "author": "safarisam94",
                    "body": "First off, gun control already exists in the USA. Most gun owners own semi-automatic guns; fully-automatic guns require a special permit to own. In addition, you have to be 18 to purchase, and felons cannot own a gun. These are already forms of gun control \u2014 what you\u2019re advocating for is ADDITIONAL gun control. \n\nAccording to the FBI, gun violence results in approximately 10K deaths per year. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls Even if we make the assumption that additional gun control would be 100% preventative of all gun-deaths caused by violent crime, it would only reduce US deaths per by 10K per year.\nWe would save more lives in the USA by reallocating the resources used to enforce additional gun control to the FDA, to increase regulation on unhealthy food products and food production practices in the USA. The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to obesity among US adults is approximately 280000 based on HRs from all subjects and 325000 based on HRs from only nonsmokers and never-smokers.\u201d https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10546692/\nEven if stricter FDA regulations only reduced obesity-related deaths by 10%, there would still be x3 more annual lives saved in the US from FDA\u2019s increased food regulation than from a 100% violent-gun-death preventative.",
                    "date": "2023-09-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k37e1pc",
                    "author": "MBSV2020",
                    "body": ">Regardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. \n\nThat is because it is a black and white issue.  The purpose of 2A is to ensure the government cannot disarm the people.  This is to protect the people's ability to stand up to a tyrannical government.  Gun Control means the government is disarming the people.   \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nThere is a lot that contain change around guns.  Gun control is not a solution.  Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law.  Gun control regulates the law abiding.",
                    "date": "2023-10-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k37en7n",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "How did you find this thread?",
                    "date": "2023-10-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k37e1pc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k439e3e",
                    "author": "Teachers-Petty",
                    "body": "Here's a cute, and somehow scary short film. It's only 5 minutes long, but it points out that the US is crazy about safety except when it comes to guns. Viewer discretion is advised.\nhttps://youtu.be/t7NK7W2NPVo?si=s2U4VMvSmwD6fQTw",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k7eo6r2",
                    "author": "jcgonzmo",
                    "body": "I see some comments here throwing around religious beliefs as if that is a factor in going against gun control. In which part of the bible does it says anything about guns? Pro or against gun control has nothing to do with religion.",
                    "date": "2023-11-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8j17ex",
                    "author": "InvaderJoshua94",
                    "body": "Yet we are not the only heavily armed nation of civilians in the industrialized world and those other nations have less gun violence, yet we have such statistics so its not the guns. There is a much worse cause in this nation and that is constant prohibition's on substances causing criminals to be empowered, and a lack of socialized healthcare making mental healthcare something people can't afford or are afraid to get because of overreaching red flag laws. \r  \n\r  \nPoliticians are the cause not the guns. They are purposely making the perfect storm to de-arm the citizens of the 2A that was built into the constitution to defend them from the politicians. And unfortunately it seems a large stupid portion of the citizens are going along with it. The politicians did the same thing with the NFA in response to the last prohibition they created on alcohol back in the day. WAKE THE F UP AMERICA!!!!",
                    "date": "2023-11-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8j1i13",
                    "author": "InvaderJoshua94",
                    "body": "Yet we are not the only heavily armed nation of civilians in the industrialized world and those other nations have less gun violence, yet we have such statistics so its not the guns. There is a much worse cause in this nation and that is constant prohibition's on substances causing criminals to be empowered, and a lack of socialized healthcare making mental healthcare something people can't afford or are afraid to get because of overreaching red flag laws. \r  \n\r  \nPoliticians are the cause not the guns. They are purposely making the perfect storm to de-arm the citizens of the 2A that was built into the constitution to defend them from the politicians. And unfortunately it seems a large stupid portion of the citizens are going along with it. The politicians did the same thing with the NFA in response to the last prohibition they created on alcohol back in the day.",
                    "date": "2023-11-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k949a5a",
                    "author": "Bulrat",
                    "body": "I belive \"both sides\" will be much more willing to listen to eachother id the arguments posed were rationa and logical.\n\nlets look at the \"ASSAULT WEAPON\" debate.....this is a debate ONLY about how a weapon looks not how it actually works.\n\nan Assault rifle is capable of FULL AUTOMATIC FIRE,  meaning or rather called \"select fire\"  and full auto IS illegal.\n\nso if FULL AUTO is illegal then it is no point in making a law banning what is already illegal.\n\nA Ruger mini-14 and a AR-15  does the same thing,  with the same amount of damage and lethality (and ease of use for the average person) but only the AR-15 is being looked at...becuse it LOOKS LIKE the assault rifles used by the military.\n\nI always found the Subaru Impreaza to be the perfect example of how \"silly\" this debat is.\n\nWe have the Subaru Impreza Rally Car,  and the \"normal street\" car......while they look very much the same,  remove all decals and paint them both blue,  you wull have a hard time telling them appart,  but they are wastly differnt under the chassis.....the trally car has features the stret car does not.\n\nSo if someone then takes the Rally car and begins to drive insanely and all over, then it makes no sense to BAN the regular car.......or?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nOr lets look to perhaps the most talked about and documneted school shooting tragedy. at COLOUMBINE...and then lets ask ourselves this question.  HOW would an \"assault weapon look alike but not actual assault weapon\" ban have prevented that shooting.\n\nthe weapons involved were thses: Tech-9 (SEMI AUTO,  not full auto),  A Hi-point Carbine,  basically a Hi-point handgun with added stock. and a SHOTGUN from savage arms.....\n\nit would not in any way have helped.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nNow lets ask this......if people began to hit eachother in the head with hammers,  is the problem the hammer or the people using them?\n\nor better yet,  this analogy:  you enter an EMPTY room,  on the floor is a basketball...is there danger in the room?  NO\n\nYou enter a EMPTY room and there is Pistol on the floor, is there any danger in the room? NO\n\nyou enter an EMPTY room,  and soon after another PERSON enters the same room,  is there danger here...YES\n\nso unless anyone can find any inicdents of a gun comming to life a gun is an item,  it is metal,  composits and wood...it is NOT someone with a mind,  a will and can take any actions....\n\npeople can and people do.......\n\nso any such debate is simply a dumb one, unless it is actually debated within the same frame of knowledge and useage,  not becuse it looks a certain way.\n\ni have 2 rifles, one with a \"psitol grip\" and one without,  they are noth the same calibre,  and they are both equally deadly,  the grip does not affect the properties of the bullet fired in any way.....",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9pxgx3",
                    "author": "Nicholaspayneinct",
                    "body": "You are right there never was and never will be a debate ,Debate is only possible when people have open minds. American gun nuttery is more of a cult which of course precludes anything that looks like debate. This issue will likely be settled by the eventual funerals of the gun nuts.",
                    "date": "2023-11-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ka8927s",
                    "author": "Jimbo-McDroid-Face",
                    "body": "Most ppl who live in \u201cwestern English speaking countries\u201d lack the cultural and historical context to understand. \nThe US declared independence from England and fought a war to be independent. Canada, Australia and NZ were all told to become independent. Likened to being kicked out of their parents basement. \nAnother part of our history is the fact that the American Industrial Revolution heavily involved the design and manufacturing of firearms. In more recent history, most other countries do not have to grapple with the issue of drug related gang violence. If not for the gang violence in America, our gun violence rates would be similar to most other counties. \nBut most notably, the US has a 2nd Amendment, which was written as the first amendment AFTER the 1st Amendment. The founders seem to have thought that it was rather important to codify that right explicitly.",
                    "date": "2023-11-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "13u71ft",
                    "author": "Anonon_990",
                    "body": "I dont live in the US but because I live in a western, English speaking country, I see a lot of American cultural debates. Afaik, the debate around guns is almost unique because no other country has Americas gun culture. Countries in civil wars aren't as saturated with guns as America. Therefore I don't think the rules of normal debates apply to guns in America. A tweet from a few years back argued that Sandy Hook \"marked the end of the US gun control debate. Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over\". I think this is right and the \"debate\" is mostly over, if it ever really existed.\n\nRegardless of any level of gun violence or any argument that's made, gun control opponents refuse to budge and view it as anything other than a black and white issue. Regardless of how many suicides, murders, accidental deaths or mass shootings there are, the idea that anything should change around guns in America is completely rejected.\n\nI don't think this is the fault of gun control supporters in America. I just think that their opponents have a religious level of belief in guns and won't budge regardless of how many deaths there are.\n\nI'll CMV if there's any real evidence of many gun control opponents changing their minds over time.",
                    "date": "2023-05-28",
                    "score": 36,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no argument that would convince gun control opponents that America's gun culture is a problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/13u71ft/cmv_there_is_no_argument_that_would_convince_gun/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kabfn8t",
                    "author": "OldReputation865",
                    "body": "\"Americans Gun Culture is a problem\" How so?? What causes mass shootings? I'm sure it isn't our culture liking guns mass shootings happen because bad mentally insane people gain ownership of firearms and how do we stop this? Well threes many ways but one way is arming more good people with guns according to the CDC guns save around 3 million lives annually and stop 2.5 million crimes per year so really, it's a good thing people won't give up their guns.",
                    "date": "2023-11-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "13u71ft"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "14288j9",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                "date": "2023-06-06",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jn3l6w1",
                "author": "Ure2048",
                "body": "Talk to your therapist more they are literally trained to deal with this. Don\u2019t value the opinion of random strangers on the internet more than your therapist. \n\nThat aside, as someone who has had this issue and dealt with it with a therapist. I feel tbe most obvious issue is:\n\noverthinking. \n\nLet me give you an example. We are acquaintances, we chatted a few time haven\u2019t hanged out much yet though. You text me \u201chey would you want to hangout tonight? I\u2019d love to hangout sometime and I\u2019m free!\u201d \n\nYou see I read the message. But no response. Later that night you see me post on Instagram stories that I\u2019m out partying with some friends. \n\nYou think to yourself oh okay they have time to post on stories but not respond to me and they clearly don\u2019t want to hangout with me and picked these people over me. \n\nCould this all be true? Yea it could be. \n\nBut you know what could also be true? \n\nThat when I got your message I was waiting on a friend to pick me up for a night we already had planned, I start to text you back saying \u201chey Id love to hangout but I actually have plans with another friend already maybe we can next weekend?\u201d But before I finish typing my friend calls saying they are outside waiting for me so I grab my stuff and head out. We have a great night I post on stories but otherwise don\u2019t really use my phone. \n\nI also sleep in the next day and had to rush to work and still haven\u2019t really been on my phone. Throughout all this I haven\u2019t even realized I didn\u2019t respond to your text and thought I did. \n\n\nYou have zero way to know which one of these is the truth and if neither are. Trying to guess which one is true is a waste of time and energy. You are drastically better off just letting it be not thinking about it and following up if you don\u2019t hear back in a few days without out any expectations or assumptions (and people can pick up on your expectations and assumptions when they are as strong as you present here). \n\nWhy follow up? Because you never know if it was simply the later and I actually will be happy to be reminded of your text a few days ago. \n\nAgain I say this all with the caveat that this comes from my experience with therapy on this subject and you really should just keep seeking therapy.",
                "date": "2023-06-06",
                "score": 6,
                "parent_id": "14288j9"
            },
            {
                "id": "jn5j868",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "This is a great answer and I really appreciate giving an outside perspective as to how the *other* person would view the situation.\n\n>You think to yourself oh okay they have time to post on stories but not respond to me and they clearly don\u2019t want to hangout with me and picked these people over me.\n\nI see this explanation a lot on dating advice forums; if the other person doesn't respond to your message but is active on social media, they're not interested, and if they are interested, they will reach out to you. While this logic may not be entirely incorrect, I think it can become oversimplified, especially if it's applied outside of a romantic context.\n\nIf I send you a message and you don't respond and I see you post on social media of you going to a party, I might immediately think \"Oh no, u/Ure2048 has time to party with his friends but doesn't have time to respond to my message, therefore he doesn't like me,\" even if the situation may be different on your end and you simply forget to respond.\n\nI seriously believe a lot of modern beliefs and notions about texting are either incorrect or just way too oversimplified.\n\n>Why follow up? Because you never know if it was simply the later and I actually will be happy to be reminded of your text a few days ago.\n\nPerhaps following up may even be a really good choice in some cases. Even though I may instinctively worry the other person hates me, that may not be the case and they may even be happy to hear back from me.\n\nAnd yes, I'll continue working this through with my therapist.\n\n!delta",
                "date": "2023-06-06",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "jn3l6w1"
            },
            {
                "id": "jn5jbh3",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ure2048 ([5\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Ure2048)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-06-06",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jn5j868"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn3fp4c",
                    "author": "Diangelo_Bell",
                    "body": "This one is easy:  \n\n\nMisinterpretation is common: Consider that there could be various reasons for not responding immediately, such as being busy, distracted, or simply needing time to formulate a thoughtful reply.\r  \n\r  \nCommunication styles differ: Everyone has different communication styles and preferences. Some people might prefer to take their time to respond, while others might be more prompt. It doesn't necessarily reflect their level of interest in the friendship or relationship. \r  \n\r  \nLife gets in the way: People have their own lives and responsibilities that can sometimes take priority over responding to messages. It's crucial to recognize that someone not responding promptly doesn't automatically mean they dislike you or want to end the friendship.\r  \n\r  \nOpen and honest communication: Discussing how you both prefer to communicate and addressing any concerns can lead to a better understanding and reduce anxiety surrounding being left on \"read.\"\r  \n\r  \nBuilding self-confidence: It's important to work on building self-confidence and not relying solely on others' responses for validation. Remember that your worth isn't determined by someone's reply or lack thereof.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn3guie",
                    "author": "AleristheSeeker",
                    "body": "Your basic stance of assumption is malice or, at the very least, negativity.\n\nMy first thought when someone doesn't reply to my message would be \"oh, something must have come up and/or they must have forgotten\" - because that is exactly why I don't follow up messages. \n\nThis is somewhat known as [Hanlon's razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor):\n\n>\"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.\"\n\nWhile I wouldn't necessarily say \"stupidity\" as that is quite the harsh word, I would say something like \"incompetence\", such as someone forgetting, not realizing urgency or just not thinking about the impact.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 21,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn5ezxr",
                    "author": "noobcs50",
                    "body": "This sounds more like [fundamental attribution error](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error)",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jn3guie"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn3mrmn",
                    "author": "KokonutMonkey",
                    "body": "I don't see why having a blanket view here is necessary. \n\nPeople have stuff going on, people forget things. And while I'm probably aging myself here, I expect people to call me if something is important and vice versa. \n\nAnd there's plenty of reasons we may want to follow-up even if someone leaves you on read. \n\nNamely updates: \n\n-On my way. Should be there at 17:00. \n\n-Me again. Trains are delayed. Should be there 20min late. Sorry bro. \n\nOR. \n\n-Hey man. Thinking of catching a ball game on Sat. Keen? \n\n-Ah, cancel that. Missus just reminded me we're supposed to go to her sisters for something. Next time, eh? \n\n\nOR. \n\n-Yo. Where you at? \n\n-Hey. We're going ahead to the bar. Should be there awhile.  \n\n---",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn3umk1",
                    "author": "Deft_one",
                    "body": "It's contextual. Making a universal rule surrounding something so nuanced and specific is flawed, so your view should change.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn3wgpc",
                    "author": "expectothedoctor",
                    "body": "My advice is to stop texting people back immediately. When you yourself start prolonging texting back or forget about replying, you can start to imagine other reasons other people might not be texting your back. I think you only hold this view because you yourself reply to people immediately and never leave them hanging.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn3zke8",
                    "author": "Gnostromo",
                    "body": "It is easier to read a message than reply.  I might be in a meeting or hanging with friends and read \"your\" message. But I can't respond because that would be rude to start typing in the middle of all that. So we get busy with work or fun and next thing i know I have forgotten all about the text message and it's not high lighted anymore since I read it so it is out of sight out of mind. \n\nAlso sometimes people don't know what to say every time so they say nothing",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn41sjb",
                    "author": "spiteful-vengeance",
                    "body": "I don't know if I want to refute OPs argument or just take them out for a day and explain how to chill out a bit and the long lasting positive effect it will have on their life.\n\nThere is some serious overthinking going on here.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn4a48b",
                    "author": "DJ_HouseShoes",
                    "body": "Two is my limit. One unanswered text is normal and two isn't terrible if you still don't hear back in a reasonable amount of time. But a third makes me feel like an asshole. Especially if they answer, because then you can't help but think you badgered them into a response.\n\nSo the most I will send without getting a response is two texts messages.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn5a9et",
                    "author": "Soft-Butterscotch128",
                    "body": "It seems like your main fear is that responding would then cause this person to block you and my question to that is...so what? Why would you want to even pretend to be friends with someone who isn't going to communicate with you instead of focusing that time on the people who do enjoy speaking to you.\n\nAlso it seems much less like the issue is following up but rather being overbearing.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14288j9",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This is something I've had a very hard time coming to terms with, and it's the reason the majority of the emails I've been spamming my therapist and my father are how long I should wait to follow up after someone has left my message on \"read.\" I get slightly shocked when they inevitably say to \"wait a few days before following up,\" because part of me EXPECTS them to further instill in me that my friendship with that person is ruined and I should never text them again. I don't mean being left on \"read\" after the natural end of a text conversation. I mean being left on \"read\" in the MIDDLE of a text conversation, which subsequently ends the conversation. When they inevitably say to wait a few days before texting, I get slightly taken aback since I barely have a toolbox when it comes to being left on \"read\" over text, and I really think a mindset change around being left on \"read\" would address many of my anxieties around texting. My apologies if this sounds very messy.\n\nHere's my (slightly flawed) thought process: I immediately think texting between two people only falls in two categories: both people are texting each other every day, and both of them never reach out to one another at all. If I send someone a text message and they read it without responding, I immediately interpret that as \"don't talk to me ever again.\"\n\nHere's my reasoning: I fear that being left on read would be a leadup to me getting blocked on social media and eventually losing the relationship/existing connection. People say \"if the other person wants to text you back, she will\" and \"if she doesn't text back, she's not interested, so move on\", particularly in respect to pursuing romantic relationships. (I don't know how this applies to strictly platonic friendships, however, so correct me if I'm wrong.) People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThis is why I tend to simply not reach out to people for weeks/months at a time if they leave me on \"read.\" I feel that it's better to simply not message at all than message too early or message immediately after the previous message and come off as desperate.\n\nI have a few social incidents to back this up. The first one was about 4 years ago. I was in class when a group of girls told me they were going to a beach about an hour away form town. They even showed me the apartment complex they would be staying at. I later begged my parents to take me to that same beach during spring break since they had a beach house there. Once there, I messaged them a bunch of times on Snapchat desperately trying to arrange a meetup point with them. All the messages were left on \"opened.\" I later randomly encountered them on the beach, but it didn't last long. I would later realize they were never actually my friends, and eventually unfriended them from my Snapchat account. I believed that, since they left my messages on \"opened,\" they were not my friends. Therefore, I worry that if someone leaves a message on \"opened\" one time (even if they're just busy or forgot to respond), that's a slippery slope towards them not being an actual friend anymore.\n\nThe second one was about 3 years ago. I was trying to pursue a relationship with someone, and it was clearly not going well since it was mentally draining. One day, I was with my friends during lunch period. They all knew I had a crush on the girl, whether because I told them directly or they heard it from someone else whom I also told directly. They took my  phone and used it to try to start a videocall to her on Snapchat. She didn't pick up. I then sent a message saying \"That was not me, that was [my friend],\" which was left on \"opened.\" The next day, I sent a picture of myself to her on Snapchat as a \"snap.\" That was also left on \"opened.\" A few days later, I found out that she blocked me. Since I was left on \"opened\" before I was \"blocked,\" I fear that being left on \"read\" one time would automatically be a prelude to getting blocked, even if the other person was just busy or forgot to respond.\n\nPlease change this view. This is seriously interfering with my current friendships, especially if I encounter a situation where the other person doesn't respond to a message I sent. Whenever I see the read recipt, the person's chat bubble dropping to the bottom of the chat window on Facebook Messenger, or simply a lack of response over text message, I immediately go into panic mode and start sorting through the worst case scenarios of \"what if they hate me\" and make plans to \"repair\" the friendship, even if there's nothing actually wrong with it. It's given me so much anxiety and I haven't had the tools to address it. This is why I feel that I should NEVER follow up to a text conversation at all after the person doesn't respond to my message; I feel that even following up after a few weeks would make me look desperate.\n\nAlright Reddit, time to say the line. CHANGE. MY. VIEW!!!!!!!!!!\n\nEdit: My apologies for the lack of responses! I was asleep. Oh dear, I guess I answered my own question lol...",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER send a follow up text to another person after they leave you on read",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14288j9/cmv_you_should_never_send_a_follow_up_text_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn5op3g",
                    "author": "Writeloves",
                    "body": "Counterpoint: I have ADHD and sometimes forget I didn\u2019t actually reply. A follow-up text can help remind my defective brain that you exist and still want to talk to me. \n\nWithout that follow-up, there is a chance of 1) vaguely being under the impression you left ME on read but never remembering to actually look at that conversation until it\u2019s too late or 2) realizing I waited to long to respond and feeling to awkward/guilty to respond until you \u201creset\u201d the timer with your follow-up. \n\nTHAT SAID! Everything in context. I have some tips if you want them? They were taking to long to edit so I\u2019ll comment them below.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14288j9"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jn5tiyp",
                    "author": "Writeloves",
                    "body": "Hi u/CEO_of_rejection_99\n\nThe two experiences you mentioned are relatively common, but still suck major balls. I\u2019ve been there. You went overboard, weirded some people out, and they stopped associating with you. However, the lesson you took from those experiences is less common. \n\nI\u2019m getting big nuerodivergent vibes (autism spectrum or maybe just social anxiety?) from the general rejection sensitivity and rapid escalation of:\n\n> People also say not to constantly spam text messages to another person or follow up immediately after the previous message was left on read. Therefore, I should never follow up with another text message at all, since that would make me look desperate for a relationship, and that would increase my chances of getting blocked.\n\nThat \u201cless is good so none is better\u201d might feel logical given your experiences, but unfortunately the world does not operate in binary. Everything in moderation. Everything in context. (Yes, this does make it much harder to master. Fuck us, right?) \n\nA trusted proof-reader can help. Someone who knows you well, has good social skills, and is willing to act as an interpreter.\n\nCreating some less severe ground rules can also help. Things like \u201cI can send one follow up the next day but it has to be from a pre-drafted list.\u201d\n\nIt can also be helpful to be upfront and blunt about how you think. Example conversation between you and someone who gets it:\n\n*Hi Name! I\u2019m trying to improve my communication. I tend to overthink when conversations are cut off suddenly. If you need a break but still want to continue the convo later, can you text \u201cttyl\u201d?* \n\n* Okay, I\u2019ll try to remember to do that :)\n\n*Awesome, thank you! Follow-up question, when that happens, do you prefer to be the one to reach out or do you like a follow-up text at some point? A bit weirdly specific I know. You can change your answer later.*\n\n* Hmmm, how about \u201cgtg\u201d means \u201cI have to go now but I\u2019ll text you back later\u201d and \u201cttyl\u201d is more of a goodbye where either of us could text later? \n\n*I like that, thank you! Could you specify what \u201clater\u201d means though? I sort of only have two text modes, every day or never.* \n\n* Huh, I usually don\u2019t reach out unless there is something specific I want to talk about. I think later should mean the next day or whenever we have something to say to each other, whichever comes second. If it\u2019s not working we can let each other know and update it. I can be a bit forgetful so apologies in advance.\n\n*That sounds even better! Though I\u2019m a little worried about what might happen if you forget. I don\u2019t want to annoy you with a barrage of texts*\n\n* I\u2019m glad you like it! I have friends with anxiety so I\u2019ve done this once or twice. How about we split the difference on the forgetfulness? If I forget to get back to you after gtg, you can text me twice the next day and I promise I won\u2019t be annoyed as long as you promise not to be annoyed at how long I took to answer.\n\n*Sounds like a deal! ttyl?*\n\n* Ttyl :)\n\nGen Z glossery: ttyl = talk to you later & gtg = got to go\n\nExample Convo 2: \n\n* Hi Name! I\u2019m working on initiating more with friends but I want to make sure I\u2019m not annoying anyone. Would you mind it if I checked in with you once a week/month or so? I know we\u2019ve both got things going on so it would mostly just be saying hi :) \n\n*Actually I\u2019m kind of busy, I don\u2019t know if I have time to talk every week.*\n\n* I understand. Do you mind if I text you if something in particular pops up? If not no worries. \n\n*That should be fine! I still like hearing from you, just have a lot of things going on.* \n\nYou can text that person about a specific thing at a later date. If they respond enthusiastically (even if they can\u2019t have a long convo) they probably are just busy. If they ignore you or only give one lukewarm response like *Sorry, I have a lot going on.* they probably aren\u2019t interested. Say you understand and move on. They can text you if they want to talk. \n\nThis doesn\u2019t work for everyone, but it can help filter out people who aren\u2019t compatible with you and ease that anxiety.",
                    "date": "2023-06-06",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jn5op3g"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "144i8zs",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                "date": "2023-06-08",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jnfuf3v",
                "author": "destro23",
                "body": ">I also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with.\n\nOr, it makes you look like someone who is in touch with their emotions, and who values their interpersonal relationships enough to be vulnerable with the people close to them. This sort of thing is highly desirable in a potential romantic partner since open communication on emotional matters is the key to relationship success. \n\nAlso, if you are able to open up to a wide group of people, you won't dump all of your issues on your romantic partner, thereby overwhelming them.",
                "date": "2023-06-08",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "144i8zs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jngjkk9",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": ">Or, it makes you look like someone who is in touch with their emotions, and who values their interpersonal relationships enough to be vulnerable with the people close to them.\n\nThat's a great point. Perhaps asking for guidance may sometimes show people that I'm vulnerable and value interpersonal relationships enough to want to be better at navigating them, as opposed to just putting on a fake facade and illusion of everything being completely fine.\n\n>Also, if you are able to open up to a wide group of people, you won't dump all of your issues on your romantic partner, thereby overwhelming them.\n\nI still think it wouldn't be ideal to simply tell every single person I know about my issues since the knowledge would spread around and potentially make things awkward, and I don't think anyone here is insinuating that. However, perhaps seeking zero guidance at all could also be just as bad. Perhaps having a group of trusted people to talk to would be better than placing all my issues on a single person.\n\nI'll award a !delta for this, but I would like to ask: where do you draw the line between opening up to a wide group of people and simply making the issue public news?",
                "date": "2023-06-08",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "jnfuf3v"
            },
            {
                "id": "jngjo2v",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/destro23 ([249\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/destro23)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-06-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jngjkk9"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnfmr1g",
                    "author": "RedditUsrnamesRweird",
                    "body": "Agreed.\n\n\ud83d\udc4b\ud83c\udffb following this to see what kind of numbskulls disagree. Admittedly I only read 1/4 or your comment though as I think I got the picture and am not expecting a quiz after. What a novel..",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnftysq",
                    "author": "Znyper",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jnfmr1g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnfnd9w",
                    "author": "Superbooper24",
                    "body": "I\u2019m guessing you are talking about like romantic relationships and this opinion is built on ur own personal experiences.  Tbh a lot of ur description is a lot of the same and is super long. However, I think it\u2019s okay to ask a mutual friend to be like hey what do you think x would want for a present because I want it to be a surprise or idk seeing if they are okay or something bc they haven\u2019t responded to ur calls or text messages or something.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnfofqp",
                    "author": "Lusamommy",
                    "body": "The big thing is trust with the people you tell about your personal life. For example, I've asked close buddies of mine to get me a connection with their friends who I'm not in the same circle as. They didn't go blab about it to everyone on earth, and most importantly, I followed up on it before it had a chance to make it's way around.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnfql11",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "This sounds more like you don\u2019t have trust worthy friends. Obviously if you don\u2019t trust someone you shouldn\u2019t tell them something that you don\u2019t want leaked. I see no harm telling a friend that is trustworthy",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnftfnm",
                    "author": "Annual_Ad_1536",
                    "body": "You are waayyy wayyy wayyy overthinking this. After college when your friends have a crush on you you don't care. You simply take it as a compliment and if you don't see it working you prepare for how to let them know.   \n\n\nIt's not that your friend would see you as weak, or your crush would, if you ask a third party, it shows you are way too invested in something that isn't that important, which shows you don't have a lot going on, which is likely to make the person reject you.   \n\n\nA better approach is perhaps to not ask anything, but simply continue being friends and drop hints, you don't need advice. There is no secret bag of tricks. It is about listening well to the other person and sharing more and more memorable experiences with them. Eventually you guys will just want to make out if you like each other.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 21,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jng0cew",
                    "author": "IndependenceAway8724",
                    "body": "Exactly. As a full-grown adult, if a friend tried to talk to me about a \"crush\", I wouldn't see it as weak so much as juvenile",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "jnftfnm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnfvo42",
                    "author": "cbdqs",
                    "body": "I think you misinterpreted the advice.  If you don't know someone and are scared of them then you can ask a friend who knows them better than you do about them. That's all. If you are more scared of the intermediate person then don't involve them! If you can't think of anyone you already know who knows them this advice is not helpful.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnfwyxu",
                    "author": "dantheman91",
                    "body": "If I made friend A upset, can I not ask friend B to check on friend A, where you doing so would make them more upset?",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jng5gy0",
                    "author": "StrangerThanGene",
                    "body": ">I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person.\n\nA good friend of mine got divorced a few months ago. We hadn't heard much from him, not surprisingly- we wanted to give him space to handle his stuff. Then a mutual I ran into shortly after mentioned that he saw him looking pretty rough at a meeting.\n\nI called him up and just shot the shit for a few minutes. Let him know I was going to grill that week and I needed his help getting it set up for summer. He showed up, looking great. Cleaned up, perked up, great conversation. He mentioned on his way out a thank you for inviting him over because he had been really scared to reach out to people because he was worried about people taking sides and he didn't want to cause any problems.\n\ntl;dr\n\nSometimes friends hide because they're scared. And sometimes friends should go find them.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnhxbcb",
                    "author": "Klutzy_Juggernaut_76",
                    "body": "Looks like CEO\\_Of\\_Rejection\\_99 has changed their view, but don't ask me to confirm with our mutual friends ;)",
                    "date": "2023-06-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnkwpjn",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Oh no....\n\n/j",
                    "date": "2023-06-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jnhxbcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnka49l",
                    "author": "Resident-Camp-8795",
                    "body": "I wouldn't say never but it does depend on if you can trust the persons character AND judgement and hwo the other person might react. Putting Never in the title of Cmv is generally wrong",
                    "date": "2023-06-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnkjrqg",
                    "author": "ghotier",
                    "body": ">If you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person\n\n1) Completely hiding your feelings from the world and never trusting anyone to know your feelings is harmful to you. You're right, it could make things awkward for the other person, but you're weighing a risk against a real harm. \n\n2) this is a way people get past the very awkwardness you're talking about. I might not be with my own wife if a mutual friend didn't tell us each that our feelings were mutual. Neither she nor I are worse off for this.\n\n\n>Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship.\n\nYou already know your mistake here was not telling other people. It was telling people you had no reason to trust. Why draw a broader conclusion from this?",
                    "date": "2023-06-09",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "144i8zs",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "I noticed a post on a relationship advice subreddit about a coworker who was avoiding the OP, and the top comment said OP should \"check on said friend through a mutual friend.\"\n\nThis unlocked a realization in my head. I feel that I should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or for advice on dealing with that person. Here's my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong:\n\nIf you're pursuing a romantic relationship with another person or are attracted to them, you should NEVER tell other people about your crush (at least, if you're not close with them) or otherwise get other people directly involved in the relationship, because it could make things awkward for the other person. In my experience, people tend to get riled up about crushes/potential romantic interests REALLY quickly. I have also unknowingly extended this logic to other interpersonal situations that are outside the strictly romantic realm as well. Therefore, crushes, and other interpersonal situations by extension, shall NEVER be released to your peers, and you have to take care of it by yourself.\n\nI learned this the hard way during my high school crushes. Since I was young and didn't know of any alternative method to seek guidance, I told a lot of my peers (except the actual person I liked) that I had a crush on that person and asked them for advice. To be fair, I wasn't actually close with these people and only told them out of hope that they would leverage their connection with the person to get them to like me back or at least offer some advice as to how to pursue the relationship. This knowledge would eventually spread around and get back to the other person. This made things awkward for the other person and made them feel pressured. Some of these crushes would also later block me on social media.\n\nThis is why I become extremely uncomfortable and get wary of answering my friends if they ask if I have a crush on another person, regardless of whether or not I actually have a potential romantic interest in mind, even if they say they'll keep it confidential. I remember telling some of my peers \"please don't tell anyone else this\" when asking them for advice on my crushes (again, to be fair, I wasn't very close with them), and yet, other people would eventually know. I don't trust *anyone* outside of a very, very select few people to keep information secret. I fear my peers will use it as an opportunity to pry open my romantic life and pursue the relationship or set up the interpersonal situation for me, The other person may believe that I have recruited an army of my friends to try to force them to be with me and make them feel pressured.\n\nI'm also wary of asking mutual friends for advice on dealing with another person since I fear receiving downright bad advice and falling prey to it. I remember during one of my high school crushes, when I asked a lot people for advice (as usual) and listened to advice that fit with my hopes of eventually dating her, while ignoring advice that went against these beliefs. It just so happened that I ended up following advice that was just downright bad, such as obsessing from afar, treating the situation as a competition with other potential romantic interests, and getting other people involved, while I ignored advice that would have actually been useful, such as moving on.\n\nI also fear that asking mutual friends for advice would present me as \"weak\", unconfident, and unable to handle crushes and other non-romantic social situations myself, and therefore someone no one should date or otherwise be close friends with. People usually say the following in terms of pursuing a romantic relationship: why would you do all this work of telling a bunch of people about your crush and trying to recruit an army of friends to build the relationship for you, when you could just go up and bite the bullet by talking to your crush and asking them out? If you spend all your time and energy asking a bunch of people about dealing with your crush, you're just circumventing the problem by obsessing from afar and not getting anywhere, and you could just use that same energy to ask them out. Girls want boys who are confident and therefore can handle crushes. Therefore, if you ask mutual friends for advice on crushes/interpersonal situations, you are not confident and therefore you are not relationship material.\n\nPlease change this view. I feel that this view should be changed I may have a strong network of friends but I believe this view is preventing me from using it to its full potential. I feel like I have to carry a huge burden in interpersonal relationships with little to no guidance and risking messing things up without having outside opinions/judgment to guide me and therefore feeling better not doing anything at all. It just feels like a missing part of my interpersonal relationships/interpersonal situations. It just feels wrong to have a support system that could potentially be useful but also something I refuse to use. I could seek advice from parents/my therapist/random internet strangers on Reddit, but while I don't think they're incorrect and I don't mean this as a personal offense to them, I feel that they're \"out of touch\" from my perspective mainly because they're older than me and may not know me personally or be relatable as much as someone my own age.\n\nAlright Reddit, change my view.",
                    "date": "2023-06-08",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should NEVER ask mutual friends about a specific person or to check on them",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/144i8zs/cmv_you_should_never_ask_mutual_friends_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jnqnyss",
                    "author": "TygerJ99",
                    "body": "I disagree because I have nothing to lose or gain when you send me as an intermediary between your crush. \nIf I like you I\u2019ll want you to be happy but I have no stake. \n\nI won\u2019t be nervous and insecure because it won\u2019t affect me really. This is why I love being a wingman I\u2019m 100% confident vs me talking to someone I like.",
                    "date": "2023-06-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "144i8zs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "14gzx57",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                "date": "2023-06-23",
                "score": 121,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jp9fyf0",
                "author": "Spanglertastic",
                "body": "You are missing a few key points. \n\nThe British have much greater protection provided by government agencies that will perform legal actions on your behalf. The majority of landlord, employment, and medical disputes are handled without a private party needing to sue. People in the US lack these protections and the courts are used to provide them. Restricting the ability to sue by exposing people to the risk of large legal bills without replacing these protections would be disasterous. The British system works for the British, it would not work in America without other major changes.\n\nSpite exists. Rich people can be extremely petty. If I'm a billionaire, spending $200,000 to avoid paying someone I don't like $10,000 I owe them is perfectly logical. If I lose, I wont miss the money, but if I win, the prospect of bankrupting them fills me with glee. The impact of losing hits poorer people a lot harder than it does corporations or the rich.",
                "date": "2023-06-23",
                "score": 46,
                "parent_id": "14gzx57"
            },
            {
                "id": "jp9hd2u",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "> People in the US lack these protections and the courts are used to provide them\n\nThis is an exceptionally good point and a factor I hadn't considered. I think this is by far the best counter-argument I've seen and it is kind of a slam dunk to suggest that a legal system works or doesn't work based on a greater social context.   \n\n\n!delta.",
                "date": "2023-06-23",
                "score": 17,
                "parent_id": "jp9fyf0"
            },
            {
                "id": "jp9hff9",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Spanglertastic ([11\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Spanglertastic)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-06-23",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jp9hd2u"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp8yply",
                    "author": "onetwo3four5",
                    "body": "I can see merits to both systems. For example, say you know that you are correct, but you are not sure that you can win a court case against a much wealthier opponent. \n\n\nSo you want to file a lawsuit against somebody. It is not a frivolous suit by any means, but the decision is far from guaranteed to go in your favor. \n\nSo that means in the American system, a poorer person could sue a wealthier entity. Even if the poor person is only working with one lawyer, or a very small team, they can afford it even if they lose. \n\nHowever, if they lose, are they now on the hook for the entire legal bill, paid for by a giant cooperation with a team of fancy, expensive lawyers? \n\nFor an example, let's say I sue Walmart because I think that their negligence caused some damage to my property in their store. This isn't a frivolous lawsuit, this is genuine, and I have a strong case, but for whatever reason, I lose the case. Do i now owe Walmart the millions of dollars that they may have spent on their defense, even if I was only suing for some smaller amount of damages, and paid my own lawyer several thousand only?",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 65,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp8zyvj",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "If the decision is questionable, then it is not a meritorious suit.\n\nThat's the point. Civil lawsuits should be for where it is clear that someone is more wrong than not, and there is good reason to believe that just compensation is being denied.\n\nYour scenario is more someone MAY be more wrong than not, it's not clear; or, they may not be denying just compensation, it's not clear; or both. That's not a meritorious claim.\n\nI can't even imagine a case where Walmart damaged many thousands of dollars worth of property (and it would have to be many thousands to make validate spending a few thousand on legal expenses) and it wasn't clear who was at fault.\n\nIf you can give me a realistic scenario, I'll be inclined to give a delta for a one off instance. But you're going to have to come up with something realistic.  \n\n\nEDIT: should be \"highly questionable\" we go into rational analysis below, but I can see how what I said here could be misconstrued as being only about being fully justified. Which was not  my intent. I recognize that all cases carry some burden of risk.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": -38,
                    "parent_id": "jp8yply"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp8z2yg",
                    "author": "jacobissimus",
                    "body": "I\u2019m the US, frivolous cases are also remarkably rare, but various lobbying groups have perpetuated a media campaign to make them seem more common then they really are\u2014the classic example is the \u201chot coffee\u201d incident, where McDonalds successfully put the idea in the public consciousness that it was filled by a crazy Karen-type, but it was actually filled by someone hoping to get their medical bills covered after they got third-degree burns from the coffee.\n\nSimilarly, I\u2019m not sure how the British system does more to encourage out of court settlements then we do here. It\u2019s pretty common to settle out of court.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp8zoq8",
                    "author": "Gasblaster2000",
                    "body": "The USA is famous for people suing over all kinds of trivial stuff though. Very much known for it",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jp8z2yg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp92iov",
                    "author": "Euphoric-Beat-7206",
                    "body": "The \"loser pays\" system can discourage individuals with limited financial means from pursuing legitimate claims or defending themselves in court. It places a significant financial burden on the losing party, potentially deterring people from seeking justice or exercising their legal rights. This can lead to unequal access to justice, favoring the wealthy and potentially undermining the principle of equal treatment under the law.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp930p8",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "The loser pays system is the only way for those with limited financial means to bring a meritorious claim, though.   \n\n\nWhile all legal cases carry some risk. If I am living hand-to-mouth, I can't afford to hire an attorney at all; while in a loser pays system I at least have the option at a bite of the apple.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jp92iov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp93g5n",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": "While in reality I have a decent job with, most importantly, a decent written contract, that is not the case for most Americans. \n\nMandating that the loser always pays would lead to money directly being stolen from American workers. I am not really exaggerating. \n\nWage theft is one of the easiest and most lucrative crimes in America and one of the least reported and least punished. (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/owed-employers-face-little-accountability-for-wage-theft/) \n\nIf loser pays laws were implemented, employers would absolutely have an incentive to steal from their employees. And would know that lax state enforcement plus the chilling effect of employees unable to afford to sue would mean they would win.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp94wm7",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": ">employees unable to afford to sue \n\nI am missing your argument.   \n\n\nIf I'm suffering from wage theft, then very likely I'm a low wage employee who can't afford an attorney in the first place. Employment lawyers around me go for about $400 an hour and would want a 5-10 hour retainer minimum.   \n\n\nWhile, in the UK, I could afford to bring a case, because if I am the victim of wage theft and have a case, then it will (a) more likely be settled and (b) not be impossible for me to hire the required lawyer in the first place.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jp93g5n"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp93s9o",
                    "author": "merlinus12",
                    "body": "This would make it incredibly dangerous to sue any large corporation unless you had a near certainty of winning the case.\n\nScenario: I am but by an Amazon truck, costing me $5000 in medical bills. I take them to court. They spend $2 million in legal fees with a high-priced firm. I end up losing the case because it turns out that (unknown to me) the Amazon driver was drunk, so Amazon isn\u2019t at fault (since corporate vicarious liability only applies to negligent actions by their employees, not criminal ones). I am now on the hook for $2 million in legal fees and have to declare bankruptcy.\n\nUnder such a system, why would anyone risk suing a large corporation who can afford to spend big $$ on legal fees? Even if you were 99% sure that you would win such a case, you\u2019d be a fool to sue because there is a 1% chance of you being ruined financially. In contrast, big corporations aren\u2019t deterred at all, since they can afford to lose big cases and pay the resulting fees. \n\nThe end result is a legal system that is heavily biased in the favor of whomever has the biggest bank account.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp95mvl",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "How does your attorney miss that the driver was drunk as part of discovery?\n\nHow is being drunk proven if not by a police citation? Meaning, the attorney wouldn't even need discovery, they'd have found that out in initial fact finding on their own prior to filing. \n\nYour scenario makes no sense, unless you're saying complete legal incompetence dramatically crossing the line to malpractice is common. Which, well, frankly, I'd like to see some data on.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jp93s9o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp9bhsy",
                    "author": "El_dorado_au",
                    "body": "According to the Wikipedia article on Libel tourism, England and Wales is a popular destination for libel tourism, at least until laws addressing it were enacted. That would suggest that lawsuits of weak merit are not being prevented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel_tourism",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp9e30v",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Not really, but I see what you're getting at.   \n\n\nUK standards for libel are not the same as US standards for libel. So, a case that has merit in the UK may not have merit in the US.   \n\n\nThat is a difference in law which differentiates what is or is not meritorious in each jurisdiction, not a difference in access. \n\nBut, this is true for many types of cases. I am not arguing that the UK definition of any particular civil infraction is superior to the definition in America. I am arguing that the system governing how attorneys are paid is superior.   \n\n\nBut, maybe you're on your way to something here. If you could show it is not a difference in the legal definition of the torte but the fact of the financial system allowing access to the courts that causes the difference I'd buy the argument.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "jp9bhsy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp9kljc",
                    "author": "TheAlabamaJedi",
                    "body": "Not 100 % familiar with the brit system but I am not wealthy. If I sued a large corporation who could afford fancy lawyers (even if they lose), I would have to pay those lawyers if I lost? \n\n That would keep poor people from risking a lawsuit because the odds of defeating a wealthy and powerful company is to high to justify the risk.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpa5hey",
                    "author": "Wigglebot23",
                    "body": "It seems there are a variety of limitations not discussed in the post designed to stop parties from unreasonably inflating their costs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costs_in_English_law",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "jp9kljc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jp9ylmx",
                    "author": "zstandig",
                    "body": "Most cases don't end up in court, that's supposed to be a last resort. Court is very expensive and it's best to settle out of court or get some arbitration. \n\nThat's what all my classes emphasized anyway. No idea how true that is in practice",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpa2ok1",
                    "author": "mrcrabspointyknob",
                    "body": "I think your focus on \u201cweak\u201d is a bit misguided. \n\nFirst, the british rule certainly means that people who don\u2019t have meritorious claims are less likely to file. *However, it also means that \u201ccomplex\u201d or risky claims are also not likely to be filed, even when they arguably should be meritorious.* For example, it is very complex to bring a technological patent case before a jury, and it brings a lot of risk external to the actual merits because jury\u2019s simply might not have the capacity to accurately assess \u201cmeritorious\u201d claims. Even judges have a hard time. The american rule limits this risk.\n\nSecond, \u201cweak\u201d is a bit mischievous in meaning. When cases involve some question of fact, there are slam dunk cases, there are difficult cases, there are edge cases, and there are bad cases. But you either win, or you don\u2019t; something was either illegal, or it wasn\u2019t. The british rule leaves a large dead zone of people afraid to bring actions against illegal conduct because they involve some arguable question of fact, meaning a lot more arguable illegal conduct goes unpunished. The american rule has much lower stakes and thus a smaller dead zone of illegal conduct surviving.\n\nWhile I think \u201cweakness\u201d is not the best argument, I\u2019m going to against myself here and say that the British rule does do something very important that the American rule does not: it makes plaintiffs actually \u201cwhole,\u201d which is the purpose of civil suits, because they don\u2019t lose a chunk of an award to attorney\u2019s fees.  I think that is a much better argument.",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpphx9c",
                    "author": "Taxington",
                    "body": "There are no win no fee law firms who aggregate that risk. They work on the agreement you pay them a cut of the award if you win and nothing if you lose.\n\nThey use their cut from winning cases to self insure agaisnt losing a few.\n\nThese firms won't take on a case that's 50/50. They will take on a load of cases that are mostly sound but a bit risky and make up losses in volume.\n\nIs not perfect but it means even the poorest have a strong recourse when clearly wronged.",
                    "date": "2023-06-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jpa2ok1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpb5hdf",
                    "author": "Pretend-Clue1448",
                    "body": "Does that mean if someone with very little financial resources takes on enormous company and loses, they have to pay for the small country of lawyers the corporation hired?",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpb780i",
                    "author": "VenflonBandit",
                    "body": "So, not sure if this will change your mind but might add context. What you've described isn't the whole of the English and Welsh system (I have no clue about Scotland or NI). There is the small claims (<\u00a310,000) and fast track (<\u00a325,000) where minimal or fixed costs respectively can be claimed. Then there's the tribunal system where costs are again very limited, only being liable for the other side if you act unreasonably. Even in high value cases in 'normal' civil court the judges have wide discretion in how to award costs.",
                    "date": "2023-06-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpbymlf",
                    "author": "GuidanceBackground66",
                    "body": "Looks like the British are winning at something other than tea making. Cheers to loser pays!",
                    "date": "2023-06-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpbzix8",
                    "author": "Mr_Makak",
                    "body": "Ok, so if I'm a poor person who can't afford a lawyer and my only option is to represent myself, my cost is like... zero? Or the odd train ticket fee to go to court?\n\nUnder your proposed system, how could I ever decide to sue some rich guy and risk having to pay millions to whatever army of lawyers he chooses to hire for his case? \n\nYour system is actively punishing (increasing the risk) for the poorer party",
                    "date": "2023-06-24",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jppik28",
                    "author": "Taxington",
                    "body": ">Under your proposed system, how could I ever decide to sue some rich guy and risk having to pay millions to whatever army of lawyers he chooses to hire for his case? \n\nHe can't do that. Judges realy realy don't take kindly to deliberately running up the bill. He's free to hire entirely pointless extra council but it won't get included in a costs award.\n\nThere are plenty of no win no. Fee law firms who aggregate the risk.\n\nThey take your case in return for a cut of the winnings, if it's remotely sound. \n\nThey use their cut to cover the odd loss.",
                    "date": "2023-06-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "jpbzix8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpd0rfi",
                    "author": "AdagioInevitable9357",
                    "body": "Looks like the British system really takes the cake. Time for America to step up its game! \ud83c\udf70\ud83c\uddec\ud83c\udde7\ud83c\udfc6",
                    "date": "2023-06-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpf79du",
                    "author": "Long_Dependent_5670",
                    "body": "Looks like the British just have better manners - even in the courtroom.",
                    "date": "2023-06-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14gzx57",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "(1) Under the Brit's system, cases of lower merit are rarely filed, as losing the case increases costs to the loser.\n\n(2) Under the Brit's system, settling cases outside of the courts is more encouraged, based on (1) which lowers appeals and speeds up the results for both parties.\n\n(3) The Brit's system means that people with few means can take on larger corporations or the government much more easily if they have a meritorious case\n\n(4) SLAPP suites are less common because they will incur a higher cost for the filing party.\n\n(5) In the USA, while it possible to get a judgement for costs, such judgements rarely cover actual costs as Judges do not have to consider actual costs incurred but can calculate what the costs \"should\" be based on average ([loadstar](https://www.abi.org/abi-journal/what-is-reasonable-under-lodestar)) costs in the area. Judges also have the authority to adjust the costs downward by as much as 30% without explanation based on their sole determination of what is \"fair.\"\n\nThe American System is far inferior to the Brit's system for determining who pays. CMV!",
                    "date": "2023-06-23",
                    "score": 121,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: In the Court System, The British System of Having Loser Pays is Far Superior to the American System of Parties Pay Their Own Way.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14gzx57/cmv_in_the_court_system_the_british_system_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jpyoop7",
                    "author": "Corduroy_Sazerac",
                    "body": "A consequence of \u2018loser pays\u2019 that you may not have considered:\n> [\u201cA corporation might apply to a court for an interim injunction (to prevent people protesting against them). In doing so, it doesn\u2019t need to prove any claims it makes. It can name not only people who have protested against it, but anyone it feels inclined to name. Papers are then served on the named people, who have an opportunity to contest the injunction. If, as is often the case, they don\u2019t understand the implications, they are likely to miss their chance. In any case, there is no legal aid, so people without knowledge of the law must defend themselves against companies using the best lawyers money can buy\u2026 But this is not the worst of it. National Highways Ltd, a company owned by the government, is using a new strategy: passing on the costs of obtaining its injunctions to the people named in them. Once a company has obtained a costs order from the court, it can force the people it names to pay the fees charged by its lawyers. Yes, even if you have adhered to the terms of the injunction, you are charged simply for being named. If you cannot pay, bailiffs might come to your home and confiscate your property. \u201c](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/29/punishment-without-trial-britain-civil-injunctions-climate-activists)",
                    "date": "2023-06-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14gzx57"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "14y71jo",
                "author": "GrannyLow",
                "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                "date": "2023-07-12",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jrt75w2",
                "author": "kingpatzer",
                "body": "For dogs that are being used specifically for un-partnered sentry duty (think Doberman's and Rottweiler) cropping of tails matters because an intruder can gain control of the animal by grabbing the tail.   \n\n\nDogs that typically do not work un-partnered (GSDs, Malinois) don't need to worry about this because if the intruder is worrying about the dog, the dog's human partner can be free to worry about the intruder.   \n\n\nI agree that for it to be part of the breed standard creates a situation where cruelty is normalized. But for dogs being bred for use in specific working situations there are real reasons for doing it, which include keeping the dog safe.",
                "date": "2023-07-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "14y71jo"
            },
            {
                "id": "jrtxsm2",
                "author": "GrannyLow",
                "body": "Interesting! One of the arguments in my head was the fact that everybody seems to want to dock their dobermans when all of the GSDs I see in actual police and military duty have their tails intact. \n\nI didn't realize that it had to do with working with a handler or not, or even that dobermans don't usually work with a handler.\n\n!delta\n\nI guess I can see docking a real guard dog's tail. An actual trained guard dog, not a housepet that doubles as \"security\"",
                "date": "2023-07-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jrt75w2"
            },
            {
                "id": "jrtxuq3",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/kingpatzer ([81\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/kingpatzer)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-07-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jrtxsm2"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrqz4if",
                    "author": "slightofhand1",
                    "body": "Dogs with cropped ears do way better in dogfighting rings, since the other dog can't chomp down on their ear and pull.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrqzu16",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "No delta as dogfighting itself is morally bankrupt.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrqz4if"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr1dh0",
                    "author": "SpreadEmu127332",
                    "body": "Pointer dogs do better with shorter tails because with longer ones they can\u2019t pull it up all the way.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr35ov",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "Do better with what? Why only pointers?",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrr1dh0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr2p3l",
                    "author": "gbdallin",
                    "body": "I have two great Danes. Neither of them are docked or cropped.\n\nDanes are loving, happy, excitable dogs, and can get what's called \"happy tail:\" a condition in which they whip their tails into so many solid surfaces that the skin bursts, and they bleed all over the place. \n\nLong term, it can cause infection or kind of a permanent laceration, or bruising of the actual bones at the tip of the tail, causing horrible pain for the dogs.\n\nWe try really, really hard to keep them calm when we come home from work, for instance, and more than once they've split their tails and sprayed blood on the walls. I'm glad we didn't dock their tails. They are expressive and hilarious. But when they are crying and whining because they've injured themselves, I understand why some people do it.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr4cxw",
                    "author": "horshack_test",
                    "body": "Our dog (pit mix) has an exceptionally long tail and the end of it is permanently calloused because of this.  Vet says he's fine, though - we would never consider docking it unless it was a real issue.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrr2p3l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr3ual",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": ">It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\r  \n\r\n\nCan you explain why you think it is morally wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr4ojo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "Would it be morally wrong for someone to decide you looked better with a stub pinkie and cut it off when you were a baby?",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrr3ual"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrr8zuw",
                    "author": "BeefCakeBilly",
                    "body": "The primary (non fighting) reason is working dogs historically. When dogs are working livestock this  prevents biting or stepping on of the dogs tail or ears. As well as prevents the tail getting caught in farm equipment. \n\nThere is also a chance the dog might be needed to defend the herd from a wild predator. If this is the case it\u2019s better for the dog not to have these soft tissue areas exposed. \n\nThe last one I have heard but is unverified is search and rescue dogs where the tail is docked to prevent it from getting caught in the tight spaces they may be searching.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrra4og",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "I have heard of your first two reasons, however: \n\nHeelers are commonly docked, but not border collies. They are both herders, so why?\n\nI am not sure what kind of livestock guardian dogs are docked or cropped, but anatolians, kangals, Pyrenees, etc are not commonly, and they are generally the real guardian dogs today",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrr8zuw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrrhc6w",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Honestly... humans giveth and humans can taketh away. These dogs with excessively long tails and ears for their function were made that way by humans. \n\nIf their very existence isn't immoral (would be interesting to see that argument made) why would fixing the problem we gave them in the first place not be?\n\nIf this were causing them actual troubles in their lives, that would be one thing, but there's no function lost by this cosmetic surgery, and therefore simply no immorality involved in it at all. \n\nDogs, fundamentally, are property, created by humans to serve our purposes. \n\nThe only argument that could make any sense is that there shouldn't be any domesticated dogs at all. \n\nIf you want to get up in arms about something, look at purebred dogs that have actual health problems due to their limited genetics.",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrrk2q3",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": ">humans giveth and humans can taketh away.\n\nOf course we can, but should we?",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrrhc6w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrs5v57",
                    "author": "Mountain-Resource656",
                    "body": "Do you accept technicalities?",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrst8uy",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "No",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrs5v57"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrs99po",
                    "author": "Right-2585",
                    "body": "Edit: I mean dumb ones",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrsbcrn",
                    "author": "Organic_Street_3389",
                    "body": "Are you okay with people cutting off their own body parts then?",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrst5np",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "Sure, why not?",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrsbcrn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrsf12z",
                    "author": "Butter_Toe",
                    "body": "I think there's a time and place for everything. I lost a dog to yotes because of his tail. Sad thing to see. Since then all my guardian dogs tails are serviced as pups.",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrt3vii",
                    "author": "RecognitionDapper814",
                    "body": "Exactly. Breed \"standards\" can be cruel. But sometimes, tail docking is necessary. Knew a former police officer who had jailed some MCC members who threatened to kill him. He had had other K9 police dogs before, but this one was totally different. He bought a GSD puppy he had flown in from a breeder in Eastern Europe who specialized in breeding guard dogs used for patrol along the Russian border. He trained it to be viscious and often kept it crated. No one except him could come within 20 feet of this poor dog.  It hurt its tail while in the crate, and the tail  became infected and had to be amputated. Vets always had to anesthetize this dog to even give it shots. It was sad how scary this poor dog was.",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrt537c",
                    "author": "TheAlabamaJedi",
                    "body": "I feel that way about getting them fixed. Yet many will freak out if you dare to say it's cruel to remove a dog's family jewels.\n\nAt the end of the day it's a dog and we know what's best for it, and well we are the dominant species.\n\n If the trade off is scrounging around in the wild with testicals or being pampered in a comfy house then honestly it's in the best interest of the dog to cut the balls out. The dog doesn't have the mental ability to way the pros and cons and decide for itself. \n\nAlot of people get annoyed by a large dog swinging in it's big tail around. So they have it bobbed. If the trade off for the dog is either remain in the pound or have its tail bobbed then its best for the dog.",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrvx8gk",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": ">I feel that way about getting them fixed.\n\nThat's a fine way to feel if you are 100% perfect about not getting your dog knocked up or not letting your dog knock up anyone else's dog.\n\nIf you don't spay and neuter and then allow your dog to add to the millions of excess, unwanted animals out there, then you are in the wrong and creating suffering.",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrt537c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrtdy1s",
                    "author": "BadSexyRedhead0311",
                    "body": "I've worked in the grooming field for a long time, and I mostly agree with this statement.  Its ridiculous to make a dog go through the procedures needed for just the look.  However there are some breeds/dogs who have constant problems and infections; etc., based on the way their ears fall and if it is necessary then Id say why not.",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrucwuv",
                    "author": "Thegrizzlyatoms",
                    "body": "I generally agree with part of your statement- that it is wrong to cut off a dog's body part for aesthetics. I also believe that most docking/cropping on most commonly docked breeds is unnecessary, especially when these are generally suburban family pets.\n\nI disagree that the only justifiable reason to dock a dog's tail is prior injury. It's literally a preventative measure, that's the whole (and only morally justifiable imo) point of the operation. If you've ever seen puppies get docked, it's 2-5 minutes of whining and they go back to sleep with their littermates pretty much right away. Why wait for a more severe injury, which would lead to a more severe surgery on a now older, more trauma-prone and energetic dog?\n\nLet me tell you about my dogs to add some color to this case:\n\nI have an old GWP who has been my hunting, backpacking and general adventure buddy for a decade. I opted to not have him docked as a puppy, which I regret.\n\nHis tail often ends up a bit bloody, scraped and bruised at some point on any given weekend in the woods. These injuries (even small ones) concern me because they can lead to infection, it requires me to restrain him to treat it to keep it clean, which only adds to his misery.\n\nHe has had instances of seriously bruised/scraped/torn muscles in his tail that have resulted in vet visits, as well as Limber tail syndrome from cold water swims that require days or weeks of healing. If you've ever tried to get a hunting dog to chill out and heal for a week, it's impossible. They need to be active every day and when they can't, they are miserable mentally on top of their physical pain from the injury.\n\nA few minutes of pain as a puppy would have spared him days, weeks, and probably months of pain and misery if you added it all up over the past 12 years of his life.\n\nI recently picked up a Draht puppy whose lifestyle will be very similar to my old GWP, but she was docked by the breeder.\n\nDo you think it was morally wrong to have her docked, knowing with relative certainty that it would spare her a much higher degree and frequency of pain in the future?",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrvgefu",
                    "author": "Any_Comfortable5669",
                    "body": "Looks like even dogs are getting their own 'fashion police' now!",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrvlxg6",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "What do you mean by that?",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jrvgefu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrvhf9v",
                    "author": "Sea_Knee6224",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with your view!",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrw07qj",
                    "author": "ThrowRA_aholemom",
                    "body": "Not going to change your view. I've seen some horrific animal injuries and surgeries, but the only thing that ever turned my stomach was watching a vet tech dock a Doberman puppy's ears",
                    "date": "2023-07-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jrwh6am",
                    "author": "MightLongjumping9628",
                    "body": "My next door neighbour bought her doberman and within months she\u2019s got her ears cropped and posting her ear casts proudly on facebook \ud83d\ude17",
                    "date": "2023-07-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "js3sklm",
                    "author": "Bmchauvette_123",
                    "body": "To me, cropping is an amputation.",
                    "date": "2023-07-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "14y71jo",
                    "author": "GrannyLow",
                    "body": "It is morally wrong to cut off a dog's body parts for aesthetics.\n\nMy view can possibly be changed with situations where the cropping or docking actually benefits the dog.\n\nMy view may be changed by situations where a dog is very likely to be injured in a particular body part if it is not removed, but it would have to be a grave danger since the operation itself is an injury.\n\nMy view will not be changed with arbitrary breed standards. If breeders wanted a specific trait in a breed then it they should have bred it in. Breed standards should never require surgical removal of body parts.",
                    "date": "2023-07-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The only justifiable reasons to crop a dog's ears or dock a dog's tail is prior injuries or diseases.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/14y71jo/cmv_the_only_justifiable_reasons_to_crop_a_dogs/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "js6b56b",
                    "author": "y2j1dft",
                    "body": "100% agree.",
                    "date": "2023-07-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "14y71jo"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "151zdbr",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsb6qqu",
                "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                "body": "I don't know, I don't think that being rational, articulate, or well-informed are necessarily all requirements for being correct. That they cannot articulate why their beliefs are correct doesn't make their other contributions to the cause less significant.",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "151zdbr"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsbnebc",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "Right, I can't refuse you a delta lol \u0394\n\nThat was a good point. I think you are saying that sometimes we can get a trustworthy intuition that there is an injustice that we should act on. If we try to develop this into a theory it might just be a stumbling block to action.\n\nWell, I learned, I agree. I know it's a bit of an extreme case, but abused children can't define what is wrong with their situation but they know they are deeply distressed and want things to change - and I guess they feel there is something wrong with their abuser.\n\nSo yes, this is a problem with my position. Requiring theory before action can prevent or slow down action.\n\nBut this coin has two sides:\n\nCan we always trust our intuition about what is right/wrong? You might be a zealous nationalist who is trying to preserve your culture from a perceived threat or a fundamentalist Christian who really feels Satan is controlling schools or a radical feminist who believes women should not be friends with white men.\n\nSo although I must agree thinking can slow down activism I think it can also prevent bad or harmful activism which creates the wrong kind of change.\n\nSo I guess I will concede that the activist can overthink the issue too. But I think the problem is more often with underthinking.",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jsb6qqu"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsbnhup",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MercurianAspirations ([309\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MercurianAspirations)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jsbnebc"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb2wdn",
                    "author": "237583dh",
                    "body": "Maybe your view on what activism is has been skewed by Youtube?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbgjnl",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Possibly, I responded to a similar point above. Have an upvote. Thanks",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb2wdn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb32cq",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "The average activist is just as dumb as the average person. Do you really expect the average person to have more than a tenuous grasp on every one of their beliefs and to be able to argue both in favorite or against any one of them?\n\nThat seems like much too high a bar. We can barely get humanity aligned on evolution and climate change.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbgs75",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "It's a good point. Although I would say the bar should be higher for activists because they are trying to change policy. They are trying to get you and me to change our behavior - in some cases aggressively trying to get others to change.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb32cq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb3a2o",
                    "author": "Kotoperek",
                    "body": "Yeah, but catching people off guard with ill-intended questions and then laughing at them getting emotional is also a strategy used against activism, and on both sides. You mentions SJWs, but if you type something like \"idiots at MAGA protests answer questions\" you'll get people on the right trying to answer simple questions and proving they have no clue what they are talking about or voting for. \n\nThere is a difference between activism as education (explaining to others why your position is the one they should also hold), and action based activism, where you go to a protest, boycott a business, or otherwise engage in an action with an inteded response from the authorities. And then you're not trying to educate people, you're protesting. So asking you to sit down and coherently explain your reasoning is a deliberate strategy to discredit you in the media in a situation where you're not required to explain yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb529m",
                    "author": "Novemberists",
                    "body": "This past week I've really kicked the beehive with the two incredibly hot takes:\n\n* If climate change activists shifted their position slightly and made the cause about reducing pollution which everyone can see happening and everyone can get behind.\n\n* It makes no sense for BLM to gatekeep and make their cause about the 15 unarmed black men who get killed by cops per year when the issue of the hundred thousand Americans who get brutalized by police is a much easier cause to promote.\n\nI kind of share Op's view but where we differ is that the failure to stand up to any scrutiny at all is because their primary goal is not to change things.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb3a2o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb3t73",
                    "author": "stewshi",
                    "body": "\n> There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, \n\nThe street questioning videos you see of activist being questioned are usually highly edited. You can see this also on Jimmy Kimmel. They ask alot of people and only present the funny responses. These videos are not representative of the knowledge of protesters and are pretty much memes.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\nSame for a lot of groups. Christians will tell you it's gods will about alot of things because to them a insider it perfectly answers the question.\n\n\n>2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\nExample please\n\n>3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nLet's look at BLM. If you can up to me and said \" why are you protesting?\" And I say \" police brutality is bad\"  that's a perfectly valid response. Ask climate activist and theyll say \" climate change is going to make it hard to live on earth\" these are valid responses. \n\n\n>However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\n\nDo you have to be an authority of Christianity to participate in the religion or do you have to believe the religion is the best course of action to reach your desired endpoint.  Because I'd inatood outside of a church and fired random questions at christians alot of it would look like the meme videos made of protestors.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb5r3i",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t need to be an authority, but you need to be able tonintelectually substantiate your opinion or you should really keep it to yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb3t73"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb465i",
                    "author": "swanshalom",
                    "body": "Do you have any specific examples you can link to?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb4rs0",
                    "author": "mortusowo",
                    "body": ">There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n\nI've seen a fair amount of these videos as I was interested in SJW cringe content when I was younger. Now that I am interested in activism particularly around LGBT issues, I have  revisited some of that content. \n\nAnd now I realize that while some of it is being dumb and is cherrypicked for that reason (as in the person recording searched around and probably interviewed several dozen people before they got to a dumb one) sometimes it's actually an issue of asking a trap question. \n\nI'll give an example. There was a documentary with Matt Walsh called \"What is a woman?\" where he did this style of questioning for a good portion of his documentary. Several groups either didn't answer his question or played dumb. That's because there's no good way to answer that question without being sucked into a trap argument thats not going to be productive. It's not that the question is unanswerable, or those people are uneducated on those issues. It's just a trap.  As a lot of that kind of content tends to be.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb65dn",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not a trap to ask what a women is. It gets to the heart of the issue. You cal it a trip because the potential answer makes us unsure. It\u2019s a great question for exactly that reason. \n\nIt exposes that the real argument for LGBT movement is there is no women there is no man these are basically bull shit terms that must be discarded to make way for the gender fluid version of reality they see. \n\nIt\u2019s not a trap. It\u2019s a question that reveals the true argument. That\u2019s why it makes them look bad when the question is asked because they are not yet ready to intellectually admit that they are seeking the abolishment of the terms women and men. If we can\u2019t even define what it is then it has no use.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb4rs0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb4six",
                    "author": "merlinus12",
                    "body": "This is a difficult CMV to respond to, since it is basically just \u201cSome people who do X are bad at X\u201d which is true almost by definition.\n\nBut you also imply that only people who have become an \u2018authority\u2019 on a topic should become activists. And I don\u2019t think that is necessarily the case. \n\nSure, there are some topics where you need to do a lot of work to understand the nuances and complexities (global banking systems, tax policy, etc). But sometimes the issue is simply \u201cX is evil and should end.\u201d You don\u2019t need a PhD in criminal justice to know that human trafficking is bad, for instance. Lending your voice and platform to oppose things that are clearly wrong can be useful in raising awareness of a topic even if you aren\u2019t an expert.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb6bvz",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "They literally said you don\u2019t need to be an authority. Please read post carefully if you responding.\n\nYou need to be able to intelligently support and define your positions in a reasonable manner if you are actively telling others your view is correct.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb4six"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb7a4k",
                    "author": "Squidocto",
                    "body": "Has been said but I\u2019d like to emphasize: speaking articulately, on demand and on camera, is a skill\u2014a skill most people do not possess. Having one\u2019s head empty out when in the spotlight hits is, I suspect, a very common phenomenon",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbnhde",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Good point.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb7a4k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb80yc",
                    "author": "Mestoph",
                    "body": "You mean if you watch videos titled \"SJW\" on YouTube you'll be exposed to selectively edited videos trying to make the \"activists\" look stupid? Say it ain't so...",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbnram",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Sorry I should have clarified that the sjw videos are not my only reason. I just wanted to give a quick example of some of the people I am talking about. But you are right, these videos obviously misrepresent many activists.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb80yc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbaqh2",
                    "author": "VertigoOne",
                    "body": "What you're essentially asking is that every activist be more educated than the average populace, however the populace often shut down educated activists with mere badly understood slogans too.\n\nA good example of this was Brexit with \"Take back control\". Expert after expert could point out how fundamentally meaningless that phrase was, but that was what the population responded with.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbqchx",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "No, I think both sides needed to be thoughtful. What I say applies to both those on the right and left. \n\nI don't know a lot about the Brexit issue but I would suggest that everyone should think before they go out onto the streets.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbaqh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbhvxe",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": ">YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims\n\nYouTube is not real life. The clips on their are on there because they are entertaining, no one is uploading hours long reasoned, unemotional debates. That doesn't generate views. So the ones on their are already a cherry picked subset of these kinds of interactions and are often taken out of context or straight up edited to look worse. \n\n>There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n>2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\nHow much is many? There's always going to be a few outliers of any group but I'd say this is an incredibly hard statement to back up. Given that most activism is going on outside of your knowledge, irl where its not being filmed for YouTube how would you know about what those people do or don't know? \n\n>Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nPublic speaking is a skill. A skill many people don't have. And when a topic is emotive that can make it even harder to articulate a point. It's like lawyers, they're payed to argue professional because it's a skill not everyone has. Just because someone can't articulate the words in the moment doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. Like writing and essay vs an oral exam, some people are just better at one or the other. \n\nThere's no qualification or test to become an activist. Its just people who are passionate about something. I think it's unfair for hold them to the kinds of standards you would for someone who was a professional.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbk2t9",
                    "author": "UnauthorizedUsername",
                    "body": "I mean, it's sort of biased by your search for one thing.\n\nPeople who are pro- these topics tend to not call themselves SJW's -- that's a term almost exclusively used by people who mock and deride activists.  Using that to guage how educated activists are for their case is using a *very* biased sample, and will be filled with people who've specifically looked for the dumbest or least media-savvy person in a crowd to prop up as the representative for the cause.\n\nBut you can find *plenty* of well-educated and well spoken activists on these causes, if you search for things that aren't right-wing insults.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbspwx",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Fair point. I will say though that it's not just YouTube that my view is based on. But you are right, this source is biased.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbk2t9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbm77t",
                    "author": "Martardious",
                    "body": "SJW are just following the path set forth by religions.\n\nStep 1: Posit something easily refuted.\n\nStep 2: Deny all facts, observations and scientific findings that contradict the posit of step 1.\n\nStep 3: Hissy fit until people either agree or shut up.\n\nStep 4: (Doesn't apply in the west anymore) Burn those who still disagree.\n\nUltimately like anything with the religious right wing, the problem is they hate competition.\n\nCrazy non-reality based conjectures? Check.\n\nAccusations of grooming and molestations? Check\n\nPersecution complex? Check.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbpjz9",
                    "author": "UnauthorizedUsername",
                    "body": "How is this in any way attempting to change the OP's view, and not just your own personal rant on SJWs?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbm77t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbmbad",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> 1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n> \n> 2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n> \n> 3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nNot all activists need to be on the PR front of the movement, take part in debates etc. Movements and causes also need numbers.\n\nWhile having a more grounded view that addresses common counter-points is certainly commendable, I don't think that we ought to \"gatekeep\" who can be a considered a proper representative for their cause.\n\nSome topics can become very complex, like e.g. transgender equality. A lot of people who join our movement may not be familiar with a lot of the details, like the leading views on gender identity, gender dysphoria, medical care etc. They are simply in it because they want to support human rights and equality, and that is fine too.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbojr6",
                    "author": "PabloZocchi",
                    "body": "The objective was never try to change anyone's mind. Some activist groups actually tries to change something, but most of them pursuits other politicial interests such as grants, more political involvement in certain legislations, or even shady interests such as money laundry.\n\nI dont deny that maybe there is a good cause, but they end up using that cause in order to get benefits rather than actually changing something.\n\nSomething similar happened in Argentina with femminist activist and groups, which ended up in the creation of the ministery of the woman as a solution for the increasing number of deaths due to violence of women, and the sexual abuses, but instead of actually solving those issues, that ministery is spending huge amounts of money buying overpriced furniture and vehicles, those increasing figures i mentioned they didnt stopped, in fact, those are increasing dramatically but lots of the activists ended up in different possitions in the Congress as legislators or officials in different possitions inside the government living great with the money from the tax payers\n\nOther groups are just getting used by politicians when elections are near and polls are not that great, in exchange of including activists in their lines (like it happened with BLM and LGBTQ+ movements), at the end of the day, they are getting used for their credentials",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbp9jn",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "Just a point I found interesting about the explain angle there are some people who are arguing from a position build on an existing agreed point e.g. systematic racism could be lead to talking to gentrification and red lining.\n\nIf this person is talking to someone who doesn't systematic racism and therefore doesn't believe gentrification or red lining is a problem is it this person responsibly to go though all effort to get them to understand a fundamental issue to talk about a more advanced one would they be wrong to not give there time.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbr4mj",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Yes, I suppose my main point (which I may have not made too clear I admit) was not that they be able to communicate their point to others. It was that activists think about their own position before trying to change the world. This is because they may have a bad idea that they are trying to push but they won't see its problems because they haven't examined it. The reason I gave examples of sjw not being able to argue was that, for me, it was an indication that they didn't think about their poisition.\n\nI have since modified my view. Someone pointed out that sometimes you can thing about your view but you simply might not be good at articulating it. \n\nAlthough, I still think a significant number of activists have not thought about their poisition. \n\nHave an upvote :)",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbp9jn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbzx91",
                    "author": "PdawgTheBanEvader",
                    "body": "Greed is wanting too much money\n\nWanting to much money is greed.\n\n\n\nThats how definitions work",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsc89ke",
                    "author": "zeroaegis",
                    "body": "The average person is not built for argumentation. You can support a movement without being able to fully articulate your side's entire agenda and you can have a full understanding of the issues and perfectly understand your position on everything without being able to properly articulate it all on the fly. \n\nThey types that \"interview\" these activists tend to be the types that built their channel/persona on being able to do that type of thing, so they have the practice and temperament to poke at arguments and confuse the average individual. Then they edit the footage to include the worst of the responses and promote that as the image of the entire other side of the argument. They're not looking for an actual debate, they're looking for people they can bully and make look bad. \n\nAll you have to do is find a few people in the crowd that have a hard time verbally articulating under pressure (usually not to hard, as it's not uncommon), apply pressure to get them flustered/frustrated, then you claim the other side is incompetent and has no idea what they're talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jscuhiq",
                    "author": "parlimentery",
                    "body": "Granted, I heard the back story second hand, but the part I can confirm is that a former student of mine was on American Idol, didn't qualify but got shown on the segment where they show the people who didn't make it and was made to look like a total buffoon. They asked who his musical inspiration was, he said (I think) Louis Armstrong, and then they showed him a picture of Louis Armstrong on their phone asking who it was and he said he didn't know. Friends of his that were still going to the high school I worked at said that the actual exchange was that he said his inspiration was some rapper he likes, then they asked something like who does that song \"What a Wonderful World\", and the whole thing was recut. This is inevitably happening in those gotcha videos, combine with the fact that they are cherry picking the maybe 1in 20 interviews where someone said something dumb. Ensuring your cause never gets these kinds of videos made about you would require extensive education to everyone who shows up at your protest, and extreme care to refuse to answer questions that could possibly be recut to make you look dumb (perhaps not even possible). Your protest is going to have like 30 people at it.\n\nThis also seems to exclude neurodiverse people from your cause. I have an autistic friend who I consider to be very intelligent, but you need to be far more patient with her than a gotcha interviewer would be. I also met many people at the George Floyd protests who, when I talked to them, had little specifics on what policy changes they wanted to see, they were just sure they needed to see action to stop this from happening. Is that not a valid reason to try to make your voice heard? I discussed my positions with several of these people, and they seemed interested in researching them further, and in turn I learned a lot more about what qualified immunity is and what politicians in my state has already proposed legislation to end it. Those protests were a great learning opportunity for me and I think many other people.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsf35ns",
                    "author": "Solid_Local409",
                    "body": "You just described hermeneutics",
                    "date": "2023-07-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "151zdbr",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsb81hj",
                "author": "Torin_3",
                "body": "How much does a prospective activist need to reflect on their worldview before hitting the streets to engage in activism? \n\nA person could easily reflect on their worldview for their entire life without ever engaging in activism. I think we can agree that it's undesirable for everyone to reflect *forever*, because then there would be no activism, ever. Martin Luther King wouldn't have engaged in activism for the Civil Rights Movement by that standard, because he'd just reflect on his worldview all the time.\n\nIf we are going to say that most activists are insufficiently reflective, we need clear criteria for that, in my view. What are the criteria we're using, here?",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "151zdbr"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsbovd7",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "Great point. My mind was changed earlier to your view that it is possible to reflect too much. You simply can't have perfect knowledge before you act - although you can't be uninformed on the matter either because you would just be the blind leading the blind. \n\nTo give you a simple answer one criteria is that they know their opponent's position - not a charactered version of it. That they really listened to other voices. That they don't demonise the other before giving them a genuine chance. \n\nTheir opponents are not all simply sexists, homophobes, islamaphobes, or as it was in the past, agents of Satan.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nHave a delta \u0394",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jsb81hj"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsboy0s",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Torin_3 ([10\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Torin_3)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jsbovd7"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb2wdn",
                    "author": "237583dh",
                    "body": "Maybe your view on what activism is has been skewed by Youtube?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbgjnl",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Possibly, I responded to a similar point above. Have an upvote. Thanks",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb2wdn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb32cq",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "The average activist is just as dumb as the average person. Do you really expect the average person to have more than a tenuous grasp on every one of their beliefs and to be able to argue both in favorite or against any one of them?\n\nThat seems like much too high a bar. We can barely get humanity aligned on evolution and climate change.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbgs75",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "It's a good point. Although I would say the bar should be higher for activists because they are trying to change policy. They are trying to get you and me to change our behavior - in some cases aggressively trying to get others to change.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb32cq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb3a2o",
                    "author": "Kotoperek",
                    "body": "Yeah, but catching people off guard with ill-intended questions and then laughing at them getting emotional is also a strategy used against activism, and on both sides. You mentions SJWs, but if you type something like \"idiots at MAGA protests answer questions\" you'll get people on the right trying to answer simple questions and proving they have no clue what they are talking about or voting for. \n\nThere is a difference between activism as education (explaining to others why your position is the one they should also hold), and action based activism, where you go to a protest, boycott a business, or otherwise engage in an action with an inteded response from the authorities. And then you're not trying to educate people, you're protesting. So asking you to sit down and coherently explain your reasoning is a deliberate strategy to discredit you in the media in a situation where you're not required to explain yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb529m",
                    "author": "Novemberists",
                    "body": "This past week I've really kicked the beehive with the two incredibly hot takes:\n\n* If climate change activists shifted their position slightly and made the cause about reducing pollution which everyone can see happening and everyone can get behind.\n\n* It makes no sense for BLM to gatekeep and make their cause about the 15 unarmed black men who get killed by cops per year when the issue of the hundred thousand Americans who get brutalized by police is a much easier cause to promote.\n\nI kind of share Op's view but where we differ is that the failure to stand up to any scrutiny at all is because their primary goal is not to change things.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb3a2o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb3t73",
                    "author": "stewshi",
                    "body": "\n> There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, \n\nThe street questioning videos you see of activist being questioned are usually highly edited. You can see this also on Jimmy Kimmel. They ask alot of people and only present the funny responses. These videos are not representative of the knowledge of protesters and are pretty much memes.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\nSame for a lot of groups. Christians will tell you it's gods will about alot of things because to them a insider it perfectly answers the question.\n\n\n>2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\nExample please\n\n>3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nLet's look at BLM. If you can up to me and said \" why are you protesting?\" And I say \" police brutality is bad\"  that's a perfectly valid response. Ask climate activist and theyll say \" climate change is going to make it hard to live on earth\" these are valid responses. \n\n\n>However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\n\nDo you have to be an authority of Christianity to participate in the religion or do you have to believe the religion is the best course of action to reach your desired endpoint.  Because I'd inatood outside of a church and fired random questions at christians alot of it would look like the meme videos made of protestors.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb5r3i",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t need to be an authority, but you need to be able tonintelectually substantiate your opinion or you should really keep it to yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb3t73"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb465i",
                    "author": "swanshalom",
                    "body": "Do you have any specific examples you can link to?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb4rs0",
                    "author": "mortusowo",
                    "body": ">There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n\nI've seen a fair amount of these videos as I was interested in SJW cringe content when I was younger. Now that I am interested in activism particularly around LGBT issues, I have  revisited some of that content. \n\nAnd now I realize that while some of it is being dumb and is cherrypicked for that reason (as in the person recording searched around and probably interviewed several dozen people before they got to a dumb one) sometimes it's actually an issue of asking a trap question. \n\nI'll give an example. There was a documentary with Matt Walsh called \"What is a woman?\" where he did this style of questioning for a good portion of his documentary. Several groups either didn't answer his question or played dumb. That's because there's no good way to answer that question without being sucked into a trap argument thats not going to be productive. It's not that the question is unanswerable, or those people are uneducated on those issues. It's just a trap.  As a lot of that kind of content tends to be.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb65dn",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not a trap to ask what a women is. It gets to the heart of the issue. You cal it a trip because the potential answer makes us unsure. It\u2019s a great question for exactly that reason. \n\nIt exposes that the real argument for LGBT movement is there is no women there is no man these are basically bull shit terms that must be discarded to make way for the gender fluid version of reality they see. \n\nIt\u2019s not a trap. It\u2019s a question that reveals the true argument. That\u2019s why it makes them look bad when the question is asked because they are not yet ready to intellectually admit that they are seeking the abolishment of the terms women and men. If we can\u2019t even define what it is then it has no use.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb4rs0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb4six",
                    "author": "merlinus12",
                    "body": "This is a difficult CMV to respond to, since it is basically just \u201cSome people who do X are bad at X\u201d which is true almost by definition.\n\nBut you also imply that only people who have become an \u2018authority\u2019 on a topic should become activists. And I don\u2019t think that is necessarily the case. \n\nSure, there are some topics where you need to do a lot of work to understand the nuances and complexities (global banking systems, tax policy, etc). But sometimes the issue is simply \u201cX is evil and should end.\u201d You don\u2019t need a PhD in criminal justice to know that human trafficking is bad, for instance. Lending your voice and platform to oppose things that are clearly wrong can be useful in raising awareness of a topic even if you aren\u2019t an expert.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb6bvz",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "They literally said you don\u2019t need to be an authority. Please read post carefully if you responding.\n\nYou need to be able to intelligently support and define your positions in a reasonable manner if you are actively telling others your view is correct.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb4six"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb7a4k",
                    "author": "Squidocto",
                    "body": "Has been said but I\u2019d like to emphasize: speaking articulately, on demand and on camera, is a skill\u2014a skill most people do not possess. Having one\u2019s head empty out when in the spotlight hits is, I suspect, a very common phenomenon",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbnhde",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Good point.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb7a4k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb80yc",
                    "author": "Mestoph",
                    "body": "You mean if you watch videos titled \"SJW\" on YouTube you'll be exposed to selectively edited videos trying to make the \"activists\" look stupid? Say it ain't so...",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbnram",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Sorry I should have clarified that the sjw videos are not my only reason. I just wanted to give a quick example of some of the people I am talking about. But you are right, these videos obviously misrepresent many activists.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb80yc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbaqh2",
                    "author": "VertigoOne",
                    "body": "What you're essentially asking is that every activist be more educated than the average populace, however the populace often shut down educated activists with mere badly understood slogans too.\n\nA good example of this was Brexit with \"Take back control\". Expert after expert could point out how fundamentally meaningless that phrase was, but that was what the population responded with.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbqchx",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "No, I think both sides needed to be thoughtful. What I say applies to both those on the right and left. \n\nI don't know a lot about the Brexit issue but I would suggest that everyone should think before they go out onto the streets.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbaqh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbhvxe",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": ">YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims\n\nYouTube is not real life. The clips on their are on there because they are entertaining, no one is uploading hours long reasoned, unemotional debates. That doesn't generate views. So the ones on their are already a cherry picked subset of these kinds of interactions and are often taken out of context or straight up edited to look worse. \n\n>There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n>2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\nHow much is many? There's always going to be a few outliers of any group but I'd say this is an incredibly hard statement to back up. Given that most activism is going on outside of your knowledge, irl where its not being filmed for YouTube how would you know about what those people do or don't know? \n\n>Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nPublic speaking is a skill. A skill many people don't have. And when a topic is emotive that can make it even harder to articulate a point. It's like lawyers, they're payed to argue professional because it's a skill not everyone has. Just because someone can't articulate the words in the moment doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. Like writing and essay vs an oral exam, some people are just better at one or the other. \n\nThere's no qualification or test to become an activist. Its just people who are passionate about something. I think it's unfair for hold them to the kinds of standards you would for someone who was a professional.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbk2t9",
                    "author": "UnauthorizedUsername",
                    "body": "I mean, it's sort of biased by your search for one thing.\n\nPeople who are pro- these topics tend to not call themselves SJW's -- that's a term almost exclusively used by people who mock and deride activists.  Using that to guage how educated activists are for their case is using a *very* biased sample, and will be filled with people who've specifically looked for the dumbest or least media-savvy person in a crowd to prop up as the representative for the cause.\n\nBut you can find *plenty* of well-educated and well spoken activists on these causes, if you search for things that aren't right-wing insults.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbspwx",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Fair point. I will say though that it's not just YouTube that my view is based on. But you are right, this source is biased.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbk2t9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbm77t",
                    "author": "Martardious",
                    "body": "SJW are just following the path set forth by religions.\n\nStep 1: Posit something easily refuted.\n\nStep 2: Deny all facts, observations and scientific findings that contradict the posit of step 1.\n\nStep 3: Hissy fit until people either agree or shut up.\n\nStep 4: (Doesn't apply in the west anymore) Burn those who still disagree.\n\nUltimately like anything with the religious right wing, the problem is they hate competition.\n\nCrazy non-reality based conjectures? Check.\n\nAccusations of grooming and molestations? Check\n\nPersecution complex? Check.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbpjz9",
                    "author": "UnauthorizedUsername",
                    "body": "How is this in any way attempting to change the OP's view, and not just your own personal rant on SJWs?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbm77t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbmbad",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> 1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n> \n> 2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n> \n> 3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nNot all activists need to be on the PR front of the movement, take part in debates etc. Movements and causes also need numbers.\n\nWhile having a more grounded view that addresses common counter-points is certainly commendable, I don't think that we ought to \"gatekeep\" who can be a considered a proper representative for their cause.\n\nSome topics can become very complex, like e.g. transgender equality. A lot of people who join our movement may not be familiar with a lot of the details, like the leading views on gender identity, gender dysphoria, medical care etc. They are simply in it because they want to support human rights and equality, and that is fine too.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbojr6",
                    "author": "PabloZocchi",
                    "body": "The objective was never try to change anyone's mind. Some activist groups actually tries to change something, but most of them pursuits other politicial interests such as grants, more political involvement in certain legislations, or even shady interests such as money laundry.\n\nI dont deny that maybe there is a good cause, but they end up using that cause in order to get benefits rather than actually changing something.\n\nSomething similar happened in Argentina with femminist activist and groups, which ended up in the creation of the ministery of the woman as a solution for the increasing number of deaths due to violence of women, and the sexual abuses, but instead of actually solving those issues, that ministery is spending huge amounts of money buying overpriced furniture and vehicles, those increasing figures i mentioned they didnt stopped, in fact, those are increasing dramatically but lots of the activists ended up in different possitions in the Congress as legislators or officials in different possitions inside the government living great with the money from the tax payers\n\nOther groups are just getting used by politicians when elections are near and polls are not that great, in exchange of including activists in their lines (like it happened with BLM and LGBTQ+ movements), at the end of the day, they are getting used for their credentials",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbp9jn",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "Just a point I found interesting about the explain angle there are some people who are arguing from a position build on an existing agreed point e.g. systematic racism could be lead to talking to gentrification and red lining.\n\nIf this person is talking to someone who doesn't systematic racism and therefore doesn't believe gentrification or red lining is a problem is it this person responsibly to go though all effort to get them to understand a fundamental issue to talk about a more advanced one would they be wrong to not give there time.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbr4mj",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Yes, I suppose my main point (which I may have not made too clear I admit) was not that they be able to communicate their point to others. It was that activists think about their own position before trying to change the world. This is because they may have a bad idea that they are trying to push but they won't see its problems because they haven't examined it. The reason I gave examples of sjw not being able to argue was that, for me, it was an indication that they didn't think about their poisition.\n\nI have since modified my view. Someone pointed out that sometimes you can thing about your view but you simply might not be good at articulating it. \n\nAlthough, I still think a significant number of activists have not thought about their poisition. \n\nHave an upvote :)",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbp9jn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbzx91",
                    "author": "PdawgTheBanEvader",
                    "body": "Greed is wanting too much money\n\nWanting to much money is greed.\n\n\n\nThats how definitions work",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsc89ke",
                    "author": "zeroaegis",
                    "body": "The average person is not built for argumentation. You can support a movement without being able to fully articulate your side's entire agenda and you can have a full understanding of the issues and perfectly understand your position on everything without being able to properly articulate it all on the fly. \n\nThey types that \"interview\" these activists tend to be the types that built their channel/persona on being able to do that type of thing, so they have the practice and temperament to poke at arguments and confuse the average individual. Then they edit the footage to include the worst of the responses and promote that as the image of the entire other side of the argument. They're not looking for an actual debate, they're looking for people they can bully and make look bad. \n\nAll you have to do is find a few people in the crowd that have a hard time verbally articulating under pressure (usually not to hard, as it's not uncommon), apply pressure to get them flustered/frustrated, then you claim the other side is incompetent and has no idea what they're talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jscuhiq",
                    "author": "parlimentery",
                    "body": "Granted, I heard the back story second hand, but the part I can confirm is that a former student of mine was on American Idol, didn't qualify but got shown on the segment where they show the people who didn't make it and was made to look like a total buffoon. They asked who his musical inspiration was, he said (I think) Louis Armstrong, and then they showed him a picture of Louis Armstrong on their phone asking who it was and he said he didn't know. Friends of his that were still going to the high school I worked at said that the actual exchange was that he said his inspiration was some rapper he likes, then they asked something like who does that song \"What a Wonderful World\", and the whole thing was recut. This is inevitably happening in those gotcha videos, combine with the fact that they are cherry picking the maybe 1in 20 interviews where someone said something dumb. Ensuring your cause never gets these kinds of videos made about you would require extensive education to everyone who shows up at your protest, and extreme care to refuse to answer questions that could possibly be recut to make you look dumb (perhaps not even possible). Your protest is going to have like 30 people at it.\n\nThis also seems to exclude neurodiverse people from your cause. I have an autistic friend who I consider to be very intelligent, but you need to be far more patient with her than a gotcha interviewer would be. I also met many people at the George Floyd protests who, when I talked to them, had little specifics on what policy changes they wanted to see, they were just sure they needed to see action to stop this from happening. Is that not a valid reason to try to make your voice heard? I discussed my positions with several of these people, and they seemed interested in researching them further, and in turn I learned a lot more about what qualified immunity is and what politicians in my state has already proposed legislation to end it. Those protests were a great learning opportunity for me and I think many other people.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsf35ns",
                    "author": "Solid_Local409",
                    "body": "You just described hermeneutics",
                    "date": "2023-07-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "151zdbr",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsbap3i",
                "author": "Robert_Caro",
                "body": ">Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world.\n\nProbably the main thing I see on the internet is people writing about an issue they've thought about a lot. They've imagined conversations and arguments, but they've never actually spoken to another human being face-to-face about it. So they don't have \"reasonable arguments defending the basics of their position\" (is this even how human conversation works?) because they don't know what concerns people have. Because, again, they don't know any people. \n\nThe way you develop that muscle is by going out and talking to people. Seeing what they say, how they interact, how they feel, who they are, what they're concerned with. You simply can't do that alone in your bedroom thinking up stuff. \n\nBut people need time and space to learn how to interact with others. They need a little grace. Stocking a camera in their faces and laughing at them for not being eloquent enough to convince a pool of internet weirdos who 1) are already part of a community that's unsympathetic to them, and 2) don't worry about their own social awkwardness is the opposite of grace.",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "151zdbr"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsbpz5w",
                "author": "LostSignal1914",
                "body": "That's a great point. It may be a lack of communication skills rather than a lack of an argument. True.\n\nAlthough some of these activists have thrown out slurs at innocent people just because of their membership in a group. I think a lot of the unsympathy they have drawn on themselves. \n\nBut, yes great point. Have a delta: \u0394",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jsbap3i"
            },
            {
                "id": "jsbq29r",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Robert_Caro ([8\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Robert_Caro)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-07-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jsbpz5w"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb2wdn",
                    "author": "237583dh",
                    "body": "Maybe your view on what activism is has been skewed by Youtube?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbgjnl",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Possibly, I responded to a similar point above. Have an upvote. Thanks",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb2wdn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb32cq",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "The average activist is just as dumb as the average person. Do you really expect the average person to have more than a tenuous grasp on every one of their beliefs and to be able to argue both in favorite or against any one of them?\n\nThat seems like much too high a bar. We can barely get humanity aligned on evolution and climate change.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbgs75",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "It's a good point. Although I would say the bar should be higher for activists because they are trying to change policy. They are trying to get you and me to change our behavior - in some cases aggressively trying to get others to change.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb32cq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb3a2o",
                    "author": "Kotoperek",
                    "body": "Yeah, but catching people off guard with ill-intended questions and then laughing at them getting emotional is also a strategy used against activism, and on both sides. You mentions SJWs, but if you type something like \"idiots at MAGA protests answer questions\" you'll get people on the right trying to answer simple questions and proving they have no clue what they are talking about or voting for. \n\nThere is a difference between activism as education (explaining to others why your position is the one they should also hold), and action based activism, where you go to a protest, boycott a business, or otherwise engage in an action with an inteded response from the authorities. And then you're not trying to educate people, you're protesting. So asking you to sit down and coherently explain your reasoning is a deliberate strategy to discredit you in the media in a situation where you're not required to explain yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb529m",
                    "author": "Novemberists",
                    "body": "This past week I've really kicked the beehive with the two incredibly hot takes:\n\n* If climate change activists shifted their position slightly and made the cause about reducing pollution which everyone can see happening and everyone can get behind.\n\n* It makes no sense for BLM to gatekeep and make their cause about the 15 unarmed black men who get killed by cops per year when the issue of the hundred thousand Americans who get brutalized by police is a much easier cause to promote.\n\nI kind of share Op's view but where we differ is that the failure to stand up to any scrutiny at all is because their primary goal is not to change things.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb3a2o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb3t73",
                    "author": "stewshi",
                    "body": "\n> There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, \n\nThe street questioning videos you see of activist being questioned are usually highly edited. You can see this also on Jimmy Kimmel. They ask alot of people and only present the funny responses. These videos are not representative of the knowledge of protesters and are pretty much memes.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\nSame for a lot of groups. Christians will tell you it's gods will about alot of things because to them a insider it perfectly answers the question.\n\n\n>2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\nExample please\n\n>3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nLet's look at BLM. If you can up to me and said \" why are you protesting?\" And I say \" police brutality is bad\"  that's a perfectly valid response. Ask climate activist and theyll say \" climate change is going to make it hard to live on earth\" these are valid responses. \n\n\n>However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\n\nDo you have to be an authority of Christianity to participate in the religion or do you have to believe the religion is the best course of action to reach your desired endpoint.  Because I'd inatood outside of a church and fired random questions at christians alot of it would look like the meme videos made of protestors.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb5r3i",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t need to be an authority, but you need to be able tonintelectually substantiate your opinion or you should really keep it to yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb3t73"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb465i",
                    "author": "swanshalom",
                    "body": "Do you have any specific examples you can link to?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb4rs0",
                    "author": "mortusowo",
                    "body": ">There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n\nI've seen a fair amount of these videos as I was interested in SJW cringe content when I was younger. Now that I am interested in activism particularly around LGBT issues, I have  revisited some of that content. \n\nAnd now I realize that while some of it is being dumb and is cherrypicked for that reason (as in the person recording searched around and probably interviewed several dozen people before they got to a dumb one) sometimes it's actually an issue of asking a trap question. \n\nI'll give an example. There was a documentary with Matt Walsh called \"What is a woman?\" where he did this style of questioning for a good portion of his documentary. Several groups either didn't answer his question or played dumb. That's because there's no good way to answer that question without being sucked into a trap argument thats not going to be productive. It's not that the question is unanswerable, or those people are uneducated on those issues. It's just a trap.  As a lot of that kind of content tends to be.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb65dn",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not a trap to ask what a women is. It gets to the heart of the issue. You cal it a trip because the potential answer makes us unsure. It\u2019s a great question for exactly that reason. \n\nIt exposes that the real argument for LGBT movement is there is no women there is no man these are basically bull shit terms that must be discarded to make way for the gender fluid version of reality they see. \n\nIt\u2019s not a trap. It\u2019s a question that reveals the true argument. That\u2019s why it makes them look bad when the question is asked because they are not yet ready to intellectually admit that they are seeking the abolishment of the terms women and men. If we can\u2019t even define what it is then it has no use.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb4rs0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb4six",
                    "author": "merlinus12",
                    "body": "This is a difficult CMV to respond to, since it is basically just \u201cSome people who do X are bad at X\u201d which is true almost by definition.\n\nBut you also imply that only people who have become an \u2018authority\u2019 on a topic should become activists. And I don\u2019t think that is necessarily the case. \n\nSure, there are some topics where you need to do a lot of work to understand the nuances and complexities (global banking systems, tax policy, etc). But sometimes the issue is simply \u201cX is evil and should end.\u201d You don\u2019t need a PhD in criminal justice to know that human trafficking is bad, for instance. Lending your voice and platform to oppose things that are clearly wrong can be useful in raising awareness of a topic even if you aren\u2019t an expert.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb6bvz",
                    "author": "Sreyes150",
                    "body": "They literally said you don\u2019t need to be an authority. Please read post carefully if you responding.\n\nYou need to be able to intelligently support and define your positions in a reasonable manner if you are actively telling others your view is correct.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb4six"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb7a4k",
                    "author": "Squidocto",
                    "body": "Has been said but I\u2019d like to emphasize: speaking articulately, on demand and on camera, is a skill\u2014a skill most people do not possess. Having one\u2019s head empty out when in the spotlight hits is, I suspect, a very common phenomenon",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbnhde",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Good point.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb7a4k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsb80yc",
                    "author": "Mestoph",
                    "body": "You mean if you watch videos titled \"SJW\" on YouTube you'll be exposed to selectively edited videos trying to make the \"activists\" look stupid? Say it ain't so...",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbnram",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Sorry I should have clarified that the sjw videos are not my only reason. I just wanted to give a quick example of some of the people I am talking about. But you are right, these videos obviously misrepresent many activists.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsb80yc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbaqh2",
                    "author": "VertigoOne",
                    "body": "What you're essentially asking is that every activist be more educated than the average populace, however the populace often shut down educated activists with mere badly understood slogans too.\n\nA good example of this was Brexit with \"Take back control\". Expert after expert could point out how fundamentally meaningless that phrase was, but that was what the population responded with.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbqchx",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "No, I think both sides needed to be thoughtful. What I say applies to both those on the right and left. \n\nI don't know a lot about the Brexit issue but I would suggest that everyone should think before they go out onto the streets.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbaqh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbhvxe",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": ">YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims\n\nYouTube is not real life. The clips on their are on there because they are entertaining, no one is uploading hours long reasoned, unemotional debates. That doesn't generate views. So the ones on their are already a cherry picked subset of these kinds of interactions and are often taken out of context or straight up edited to look worse. \n\n>There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n>2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\nHow much is many? There's always going to be a few outliers of any group but I'd say this is an incredibly hard statement to back up. Given that most activism is going on outside of your knowledge, irl where its not being filmed for YouTube how would you know about what those people do or don't know? \n\n>Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nPublic speaking is a skill. A skill many people don't have. And when a topic is emotive that can make it even harder to articulate a point. It's like lawyers, they're payed to argue professional because it's a skill not everyone has. Just because someone can't articulate the words in the moment doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. Like writing and essay vs an oral exam, some people are just better at one or the other. \n\nThere's no qualification or test to become an activist. Its just people who are passionate about something. I think it's unfair for hold them to the kinds of standards you would for someone who was a professional.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbk2t9",
                    "author": "UnauthorizedUsername",
                    "body": "I mean, it's sort of biased by your search for one thing.\n\nPeople who are pro- these topics tend to not call themselves SJW's -- that's a term almost exclusively used by people who mock and deride activists.  Using that to guage how educated activists are for their case is using a *very* biased sample, and will be filled with people who've specifically looked for the dumbest or least media-savvy person in a crowd to prop up as the representative for the cause.\n\nBut you can find *plenty* of well-educated and well spoken activists on these causes, if you search for things that aren't right-wing insults.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbspwx",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Fair point. I will say though that it's not just YouTube that my view is based on. But you are right, this source is biased.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbk2t9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbm77t",
                    "author": "Martardious",
                    "body": "SJW are just following the path set forth by religions.\n\nStep 1: Posit something easily refuted.\n\nStep 2: Deny all facts, observations and scientific findings that contradict the posit of step 1.\n\nStep 3: Hissy fit until people either agree or shut up.\n\nStep 4: (Doesn't apply in the west anymore) Burn those who still disagree.\n\nUltimately like anything with the religious right wing, the problem is they hate competition.\n\nCrazy non-reality based conjectures? Check.\n\nAccusations of grooming and molestations? Check\n\nPersecution complex? Check.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbpjz9",
                    "author": "UnauthorizedUsername",
                    "body": "How is this in any way attempting to change the OP's view, and not just your own personal rant on SJWs?",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbm77t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbmbad",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> 1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n> \n> 2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n> \n> 3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nNot all activists need to be on the PR front of the movement, take part in debates etc. Movements and causes also need numbers.\n\nWhile having a more grounded view that addresses common counter-points is certainly commendable, I don't think that we ought to \"gatekeep\" who can be a considered a proper representative for their cause.\n\nSome topics can become very complex, like e.g. transgender equality. A lot of people who join our movement may not be familiar with a lot of the details, like the leading views on gender identity, gender dysphoria, medical care etc. They are simply in it because they want to support human rights and equality, and that is fine too.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbojr6",
                    "author": "PabloZocchi",
                    "body": "The objective was never try to change anyone's mind. Some activist groups actually tries to change something, but most of them pursuits other politicial interests such as grants, more political involvement in certain legislations, or even shady interests such as money laundry.\n\nI dont deny that maybe there is a good cause, but they end up using that cause in order to get benefits rather than actually changing something.\n\nSomething similar happened in Argentina with femminist activist and groups, which ended up in the creation of the ministery of the woman as a solution for the increasing number of deaths due to violence of women, and the sexual abuses, but instead of actually solving those issues, that ministery is spending huge amounts of money buying overpriced furniture and vehicles, those increasing figures i mentioned they didnt stopped, in fact, those are increasing dramatically but lots of the activists ended up in different possitions in the Congress as legislators or officials in different possitions inside the government living great with the money from the tax payers\n\nOther groups are just getting used by politicians when elections are near and polls are not that great, in exchange of including activists in their lines (like it happened with BLM and LGBTQ+ movements), at the end of the day, they are getting used for their credentials",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbp9jn",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "Just a point I found interesting about the explain angle there are some people who are arguing from a position build on an existing agreed point e.g. systematic racism could be lead to talking to gentrification and red lining.\n\nIf this person is talking to someone who doesn't systematic racism and therefore doesn't believe gentrification or red lining is a problem is it this person responsibly to go though all effort to get them to understand a fundamental issue to talk about a more advanced one would they be wrong to not give there time.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbr4mj",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "Yes, I suppose my main point (which I may have not made too clear I admit) was not that they be able to communicate their point to others. It was that activists think about their own position before trying to change the world. This is because they may have a bad idea that they are trying to push but they won't see its problems because they haven't examined it. The reason I gave examples of sjw not being able to argue was that, for me, it was an indication that they didn't think about their poisition.\n\nI have since modified my view. Someone pointed out that sometimes you can thing about your view but you simply might not be good at articulating it. \n\nAlthough, I still think a significant number of activists have not thought about their poisition. \n\nHave an upvote :)",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jsbp9jn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsbzx91",
                    "author": "PdawgTheBanEvader",
                    "body": "Greed is wanting too much money\n\nWanting to much money is greed.\n\n\n\nThats how definitions work",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsc89ke",
                    "author": "zeroaegis",
                    "body": "The average person is not built for argumentation. You can support a movement without being able to fully articulate your side's entire agenda and you can have a full understanding of the issues and perfectly understand your position on everything without being able to properly articulate it all on the fly. \n\nThey types that \"interview\" these activists tend to be the types that built their channel/persona on being able to do that type of thing, so they have the practice and temperament to poke at arguments and confuse the average individual. Then they edit the footage to include the worst of the responses and promote that as the image of the entire other side of the argument. They're not looking for an actual debate, they're looking for people they can bully and make look bad. \n\nAll you have to do is find a few people in the crowd that have a hard time verbally articulating under pressure (usually not to hard, as it's not uncommon), apply pressure to get them flustered/frustrated, then you claim the other side is incompetent and has no idea what they're talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jscuhiq",
                    "author": "parlimentery",
                    "body": "Granted, I heard the back story second hand, but the part I can confirm is that a former student of mine was on American Idol, didn't qualify but got shown on the segment where they show the people who didn't make it and was made to look like a total buffoon. They asked who his musical inspiration was, he said (I think) Louis Armstrong, and then they showed him a picture of Louis Armstrong on their phone asking who it was and he said he didn't know. Friends of his that were still going to the high school I worked at said that the actual exchange was that he said his inspiration was some rapper he likes, then they asked something like who does that song \"What a Wonderful World\", and the whole thing was recut. This is inevitably happening in those gotcha videos, combine with the fact that they are cherry picking the maybe 1in 20 interviews where someone said something dumb. Ensuring your cause never gets these kinds of videos made about you would require extensive education to everyone who shows up at your protest, and extreme care to refuse to answer questions that could possibly be recut to make you look dumb (perhaps not even possible). Your protest is going to have like 30 people at it.\n\nThis also seems to exclude neurodiverse people from your cause. I have an autistic friend who I consider to be very intelligent, but you need to be far more patient with her than a gotcha interviewer would be. I also met many people at the George Floyd protests who, when I talked to them, had little specifics on what policy changes they wanted to see, they were just sure they needed to see action to stop this from happening. Is that not a valid reason to try to make your voice heard? I discussed my positions with several of these people, and they seemed interested in researching them further, and in turn I learned a lot more about what qualified immunity is and what politicians in my state has already proposed legislation to end it. Those protests were a great learning opportunity for me and I think many other people.",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "151zdbr",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "There are thousands of videos on YouTube of activists (or those associated with them) being engaged with and being exposed as having put almost no thought into the worldview that they preach. In fact, so much so that it has become a bit of a comedy genera. Just type SJW into YouTube and you'll see many of examples passionate activists not being able to respond to simple questions about their own claims.\n\n**I am not claiming:**\n\n1) That all activism is bad or irrational (I think sometimes it is very important).\n\n2) That the activists need to know EVERYTHING about their topic and be able to answer every question.\n\n**I am claiming:**\n\n1) There are many activists who can't answer basic questions with anything more than an oversimplified slogan.\n\n2) Have not thought about their message - at all.\n\n3) Need to be able to formulate a reasonable argument defending the basics of their position BEFORE telling everyone else to change the way they see and live in the world. \n\nAgain, I am not trying to paint *all* activists as irrational or wrong. However, there is good reason to believe there are a lot of irrational activists who have not done the cognitive work required to claim any authority on the matter they preach.  \n\nI will try to upvote and reply to all respectful comments - even if I don't agree. But if I don't get the chance thank you for your input. I will at least try to read them all.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-07-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Activists need to critically reflect more BEFORE they try to change everyone else's mind.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/151zdbr/cmv_activists_need_to_critically_reflect_more/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jsf35ns",
                    "author": "Solid_Local409",
                    "body": "You just described hermeneutics",
                    "date": "2023-07-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "151zdbr"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15kmtfo",
                "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                "date": "2023-08-07",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jv62s17",
                "author": "AbjectLetterhead2741",
                "body": "It doesn't seem to be going well in Canada. Have you heard about cases like the armed forces members contacting their Veteran Affairs organisation for help with PTSD, but being offered euthanasia instead? Here's [one article](https://nationalpost.com/news/second-canadian-forces-member-alleges-veterans-canada-offered-medically-assisted-death-during-support-call) and [another article](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/christine-gauthier-assisted-death-macaulay-1.6671721) about this.",
                "date": "2023-08-07",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
            },
            {
                "id": "jv632bl",
                "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                "body": "I will give you a !delta.\n\nNow it doesn't change Change my view. I suppose my view is on paper its good but I can see in practice the world ignores \"consent\".  However I see nothing wrong wjrb suggesting it once. If twice then I think it is coercision . \n\nNow the reason I say once is that I see it like abortion. That's just me though.",
                "date": "2023-08-07",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jv62s17"
            },
            {
                "id": "jv6367y",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AbjectLetterhead2741 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AbjectLetterhead2741)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-07",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jv632bl"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv5zz0z",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "So, while I agree with you on this, let me play devil's advocate.\n\nThere is nothing stopping you from taking your own life right now.  With $50 and a trip to the hardware store, you can purchase the materials needed to end your life quickly and painlessly.  It may be \"illegal\" but it is an entirely unenforceable law for you as the individual, so none of the arguments you've put forward really matter in practice.\n\nWhat you are advocating for, though, isn't the right to take your own life - it is the right for someone to _assist_ you in the taking of your own life.  You want doctors or other health care professionals to have the power to help you commit suicide, which is a very different ask and a very different set of arguments than what you have presented.  Just because you have the right to do something yourself doesn't mean that you have the right to have others assist you in that process.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv613gs",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "I'm not talking about you though. But the person helping. If two people freely agreed to a contract yes this should be legal. And here's the key. Freely. If you can't prove it was freely given then yes arrest the doctor.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv5zz0z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv60nzz",
                    "author": "firefireburnburn",
                    "body": "The issue is that once you allow the government to help some people via assisted suicide, it becomes the easiest way for the government to solve these problems? Fatally ill and going to suffer? Just kill them. Very ill, and treatment is expensive? just kill them. [Mentally ill and unable to get help](https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/shes-47-anorexic-wants-help-dying-canada-will-soon-allow-it-2023-07-15/)? just kill them. [disabled and need accommodations] (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/diabled-woman-canada-assisted-suicide-b2363156.html)? just kill them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv615dc",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Which is why the caveat is freely given consent",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv60nzz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv625vq",
                    "author": "Finch20",
                    "body": "What exactly are the limitations you want to impose?  Only the 1 year of required therapy?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv62c65",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "One year is a suggestion but either way I see nothing wrong. Its their choice. As long as they consent and are of sound mind",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv625vq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv62962",
                    "author": "Rainbwned",
                    "body": ">However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life \n\nThe argument against this is that if a person wants to die, they are not thinking rationally. And we should protect people from hurting themselves when they are not thinking rationally, right?  \n\n  \n\n>My second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands.  \n\nYou cannot be punished if you kill yourself. Its impossible to do so.  \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>My third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested.   \n\nHow could you prove there was no coercion? One party member is dead.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv62hu5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "We already do this with terminally ill. Before they die there is court checks etc",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv62962"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv63nxp",
                    "author": "eggs-benedryl",
                    "body": "Where does the government benefit from this? At best, they could save a tax payer by fudning your mental health recovery. \n\nThey'd benefit from looking compassionate I suppose, but they'd also come off as the opposite. They don't benefit from a dead tax payer. It seems the government has an incentive to keep you alive, if albeit miserable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv65ji3",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "Why should the government benefit!?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv63nxp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv67jvr",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "I don't think it should be legal but I think that there should be absolutely no punishments for attempting or succeeding in suicide. This is mainly cause I don't trust institutions to handle the ability to manipulate consent for death.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv68jrh",
                    "author": "MyDadisAZooKeeper",
                    "body": "I feel like legalizing euthanasia on a wider scale, like for people who just \u201chate life\u201d , could have bad mental health consequences. If euthanasia just becomes a widely accepted practice, people with mental illnesses who DONT want to die could be enticed to kill themself by people or the services around them, \u201cOh you\u2019ve had depression for 10 years? Maybe it\u2019s time to kill yourself, you\u2019ll never be happy\u201d. \n\nWhile legalized euthanasia for incurable diseases like chronic pain, cancer, or illness is probably good, but doing it on a wider scale to where EVERYONE can do it (which is what I think you\u2019re saying), that just sounds dystopian and depressing. \n\nDon\u2019t know if that made sense but yeah, I don\u2019t think suicide is the answer type beat.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6ftj7",
                    "author": "agabagadagabobaga",
                    "body": "Makes me think of the suicide booth in Futurama",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv68jrh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6975t",
                    "author": "ulsterloyalistfurry",
                    "body": "I think all the problems we're seeing right now in Canada disproves that the system can be trusted with this and modern ethics is being way too utilitarian with the value of life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6d4c7",
                    "author": "biebiep",
                    "body": "Right? Because God forbid you'd have to work on something long term, in a disciplined fashion to fix it.\n\n\n\nIt's just as hedonistic as it is utilitarian to be honest. As soon as it doesn't feel fun anymore, you'd have the option to off yourself.\nMeans even more instant gratification and even less long term thinking.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv6975t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6a19o",
                    "author": "No-Passenger-6205",
                    "body": "\u201cThe key is consent\u201d\n\n(1) It is very difficult to create a system of consent that is not easily abused.  The Netherlands is currently experiencing that issue.\n\n(2) It is very difficult to sort rational consent from mental health issues.  A whole lot of teens have suicidal ideation, and we involuntarily commit them for it.  Reason: their prefrontal cortexes are not fully developed, and they have a tendency towards impulsive behavior.\n\n(3) Consider a thought experiment in which Alice and Bob both present with a self-narrative that satisfies your definition of consent.  Both are denied euthanasia.  Alice recovers in her life situation and in five years is horrified that she might have killed herself.  Bob does not and continues to wish that he had killed himself.  Would it be better to focus resources on (a) letting Alice and Bob get their initial wish, or (b) helping Alice and Bob improve their situation?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6b0gu",
                    "author": "incrediblys",
                    "body": ">(2) It is very difficult to sort rational consent from mental health issues.  A whole lot of teens have suicidal ideation, and we involuntarily commit them for it.  Reason: their prefrontal cortexes are not fully developed, and they have a tendency towards impulsive behavior.\n\nEven adults can't think straight when they have a severe mental disorder.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv6a19o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6azbh",
                    "author": "Martin_Samuelson",
                    "body": "Your view is \"I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia\", but in [this comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/jv632bl/) you acknowledge that coercion could be possible.\n\nTherefore \"I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia\" is now completely false.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6cjok",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "I think its legal to drink alcohol doesn't mean I think its legal for babies to drink it. Legal is a simplified tern to explain my meaning which is expanded in the post",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv6azbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6bcvo",
                    "author": "enolaholmes23",
                    "body": "I agree. While coerced euthanasia could be a concern, we already have a huge problem with the opposite, coerced treatment. I and too many of my friends have been traumatized by being forced into hospitals and \"treated\" with harmful drugs because others mistakenly thought we were dangerous to ourselves. If mental patients were allowed to say no to treatment it would be a huge step forward.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6xue6",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/enolaholmes23 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20enolaholmes23&message=enolaholmes23%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/-/jv6bcvo/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv6bcvo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6cju9",
                    "author": "PygmeePony",
                    "body": ">Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'.\n\nIf the sherrif sits on their ass all day you vote them out. Or you pressure them into taking action. You don't go 'all batman' because that would result in chaos and vendettas. That's why euthanasia needs to be heavily regulated. We need to be sure there is full consent from both the patient and the doctor who is carrying out the procedure and that approved medication is being used.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6cqpe",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "So we vote Hitler out even if he's legally ousting people?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv6cju9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6fkjp",
                    "author": "KipchakVibeCheck",
                    "body": "Legal euthanasia in Canada has lead to people who are not depressed or terminally ill being referred to the MAID program (Medical Assistance In Dying) at alarming frequency. People who are disabled and want to live are asking for things like more money to live or a new wheelchair or all kinds of humane things that they\u2019re being asked if they want to just die instead. [Poor people are being killed with the most meager excuses given] (https://apnews.com/article/covid-science-health-toronto-7c631558a457188d2bd2b5cfd360a867) In practice euthanasia is nothing but eugenics and institutionalized murder for a state to remove the \u201cuseless eaters\u201d as a certain Austrian painter would call them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6ges1",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "> Edit. Another reason I support it is that if they choose to take matters into their own hands you get people shooting themselves or jumping off buildings and traumatizing people. Or the people who do crazy things so that cops can shoot them\n\nThis ironically is what I see as being wrong with legalized euthanasia. Believing that the government must approve of a free person's decision to end their own life is to believe that a person is not free and self-determinate on one of the most fundamental choices that they might make. \n\nThe legalization of euthanasia isn't legalizing suicide, it is legalizing the medical profession's assistance in that suicide.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6iumz",
                    "author": "p0tat0p0tat0",
                    "body": "My problem with legalized euthanasia is that it will be impossible to prevent ableism in its application.\n\nWhen an able bodied person says they want to die/kill themselves, it\u2019s treated as a problem. But when a disabled person says the exact same thing, they\u2019re likely to be offered assistance.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv7odu4",
                    "author": "Narpity",
                    "body": "So your logic here is that some people might not get as good of service as others so nobody should be allowed to have any?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv6iumz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6l1jy",
                    "author": "PrinceJamRoll",
                    "body": "This is tricky and I'm not sure how you do it responsibly if at all but to think of all the people that did end up taking their lives alone with the weight of taboo a d the darkness that comes in their final moments part of me wishes that they had been able to die surrounded by people and not feeling that they are committing the ultimate sin.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6o620",
                    "author": "Ghauldidnothingwrong",
                    "body": "> My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.\n\nIt does if you're advocating to **include** someone else in your preparation and/or the action of taking your life. Something like this going into legislation would divide doctors and medical professionals. Will some doctors and medical professionals be okay with this? Yes, but there will be countless others where this goes against their morals, their religion, their personal beliefs in any capacity. They would be the ones \"pulling the trigger,\" or preparing you in some capacity when you're at the hospital or wherever this happens, and by law, they would have to be part of this. \n\n\nNow your freedom to die has impeded on the freedoms of every doctor who took the Hippocratic Oath and promised \"First do no harm.\" \n\n\nYou have all the freedom in the world to die, but pursuing something like this in the bigger picture **does** end up impeding on other peoples freedoms, especially the medical professionals who would be forced to support you through this sort of process if it was legalized.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6opls",
                    "author": "Fox_Underground",
                    "body": "The problem is capitalism. We turned housing prisoners into a business and as a result there is a huge incentive to keep prisons packed to the rafters, regardless of whether the people inside actually deserve to be there. Do you really want to turn helping people die into a business?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6p0zd",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "It's already legal to kill yourself in all US states. Nothing is stopping you.\n\nInformation on how to do it simply, efficiently, inexpensively, and with as close as possible by any known method to 100% effectively and painlessly is readily available on the internet (c.f. inert gas asphyxia).\n\nI would argue that you're just caviling when you talk about people not physically capable of killing themselves in this way. \n\nBut fine: if we think these situations are common enough to have a special case for, let's allow \"assistance\" only to these people, and only to the degree necessary to set up the method, requiring the individual to activate it (Unless completely paralyzed? But then how do you get consent? Whatever that method is, it can be set up to activate the system.). \n\nIf someone doesn't have the guts to kill *themselves* it is an absolutely conclusive indication they don't *really* think dying is better than life, and certainly no one else should be doing it for them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6pk83",
                    "author": "wc27",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think my taxes should go to medically assisted suicide. We have plenty of other healthcare costs that I\u2019d be happy if my taxes could go towards it, including therapy to help you get passed your suicidal thoughts.\n\nFurthermore, If you want to commit suicide but don\u2019t have the will power to do it and need assistance from the government then I don\u2019t think you are really committed to that path anyways. We shouldn\u2019t make it easier for people to make that decision.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6v20l",
                    "author": "StaggeringWinslow",
                    "body": "Many years ago, I read a doctor's perspective on the potential unintended consequences of legalised euthanasia. While I'm not sure if I agree with it, I'll do my best to reconvey the argument. \n\nA doctor's role, when treating a critical patient, is to save or extend their life. That's it. It's the only priority; it's the only objective. Simple. \n\nIf euthanasia is legal, there's now another option lurking in the back of the doctor's mind: to give up, to stop wasting resources on a patient that might not have much chance of survival, to recommend that they're euthanised. \n\nDo we want to force doctors to juggle those factors? Do we want doctors to be deciding whether a particular patient lives or dies? That's a huge burden. Do we want doctors to focus solely on saving lives, or do we want them to be in a position to decide who lives and who dies? Do we want doctors to be forced to recommend killing patients in certain circumstances? Is that fair?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6via0",
                    "author": "youngelos5607",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve worked for the government since I was 17, and trust me, *YOU DO NOT WANT THEM INCHARGE OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS*\n\nPiss off the wrong big pharma entity and it\u2019s only a matter of greasing the right palms and pulling the right strings to have you made out to be clinically insane and dangerous and then it\u2019s off to doggie heaven.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6vpg1",
                    "author": "yoaprk",
                    "body": "As much as you frame it as a legal problem, discussing the practicalities of legalized euthanasia, from your replies to the other comments I can tell that you are more concerned about the philosophical and moral motivations and implications of legalized euthanasia. Thus your title \"I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia\" is clickbaity and misleading: you do in fact see practical problems arising from legalized euthanasia, and these problems have not been shown to be immediately solvable. On the other hand, you mean what you said when you said \"I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia\": you completely believe in the morality of legalized euthanasia, and you see no moral problems in the motivations and implications.\n\nSince we are on about philosophical and moral motivations, I summarise your point of view as this: freedom of choice is of higher value than (one's own) life. In particular, the freedom to choose death. You do not buy into the \"sanctity of life\" philosophy or belief that is upheld by the traditional Christian worldview, which continues to influence European and American culture today. I may, arrogantly, say that you view life as property. Let me explain. You are against murder, which is intentional destruction of another person's property; you believe in no legal consequences for killing during self-defence, which is simply collateral damage; you believe in legalized euthanasia, which is paying and authorising someone to clear your property; you believe in not stopping people who want to kill themselves, which is them destroying their own property.\n\nI agree that freedom of choice is of higher value than (one's own) life. Ironically though, one has to be alive to have such a freedom of choice. Thus my CMV argument: a hypothetical scenario. 18-year-old James wants to die. (He requests legalized euthanasia. He wants to die until he is 19, so the one-year period is over and he is euthanized.) We have granted 18-year-old James and 19-year-old James the freedom to choose to die. Now 20-year-old James no longer has the freedom to choose to continue living. Neither does 35-year-old James. Neither does 40-year-old James nor 70-year-old James. By granting 18-year-old James and 19-year-old James the freedom to choose to die, we have denied 20-year-old James, etc. the freedom to choose to continue living. Thus the freedom to choose to die, exercising it once, denies life and all future freedoms to choose anything else. Is such a freedom to choose to die so valuable, that it should be above life and all future freedoms?\n\n(Reapply above argument, but change legalized euthanasia to allowing him to commit suicide without stopping him. The point is about giving people freedom to choose to die, not the practicalities of whether euthanasia is legalized.)\n\nMoving on to moral implications: 1)who shall have the arduous task of performing/ordering the legalized euthanasia? 2)who shall have the arduous task of giving therapy during the one-year (don't worry about the actual length of time) period before the euthanasia is performed? \n\n1)Taking a life usually takes a toll on mental health. Consider all the soldiers who were \"shellshocked\" after the world wars. Consider that executions are performed with multiple (five-ish?) people, 4 with blanks and 1 with the live bullet, all firing together, just so to reduce the guilt of the executioners who had nothing to do with the decision to execute, simply following orders. Consider that killing someone in self-defence, though not punishable by law, still leaves the person with guilt for a long, long time. Consider that many women have to wrestle with guilt after undergoing abortions, regardless of whether they think the aborted baby is alive or just a bunch of cells. Consider that many people have turned vegan simply considering that animals are being killed to be meat. Who shall be appointed to perform the euthenasia? Who shall be appointed to order the euthanasia? How will this affect their mental health? Let's say they did it for money. Let's say they were simply appointed. This will not eliminate the effect on their mental health. Let's say the person shares your values and does it willingly and enthusiastically. After retirement the person changes view and suddenly feels like they've wrongly killed so many people their whole life.\n\nOf course, my 2 arguments above can be rebutted by a single sentence: \"freedom of choice, no freedom from consequences.\" They chose it, they suffer the consequences. So my question to you is is this really what you believe? If you were a policymaker/lawmaker who pushed for legalized euthanasia, can you simply say that the people who chose euthanasia get what they asked for? And the people who chose to perform/order the euthanasia suffer the consequences of their own actions? \n\n2)the therapist during the one year period is under so much stress. Let's say after one year they are not well and euthanasia goes on as planned. Is the therapist to blame? Even if it's not the therapist's fault, will the deceased's family not blame the therapist? Will the therapist not blame himself? Oh, who knows, the deceased may even be blaming the therapist while receiving the euthanasia! I mean, this is the same case for suicide. But with a set time frame and deadline (what a context for a pun!). What is the goal of the therapy? To stop the person from wanting euthanasia? Definitely not YOUR goal. But the therapist, knowing about the euthanasia, cannot help but keep it in mind. What about keep the euthanasia confidential and not let the therapist know that they are taking a \"euthanasia patient\"? In normal circumstances if the therapist gains the patient's trust the patient would let the therapist know either way.\n\nThat's all, was fun typing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv6zfpj",
                    "author": "prepend",
                    "body": "You mention \"if the government has failed them.\"\n\nWhat does this mean? How would the government failing someone affect their will to live? What is the government's duty?\n\nGovernments vary substantially by country, region, state, city, etc. I don't think it's fair, or wise, to rely on government operating properly and fulfilling their duty to keep someone alive.\n\nJust because government fails to perform its duty, that shouldn't mean someone dies. That might mean someone who lives in a great city with lots of resources would get \"fixed\" by the government, while someone else in another city with inadequate resources would not get \"fixed\" and therefore would die.\n\nThere's lots of systemic problems and biases and prejudices and it seems like the system you propose would compound these problems and result in harm to the most vulnerable populations and most exploited minorities.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv72yo2",
                    "author": "ChopinCJ",
                    "body": "The equipment one needs to painlessly end their life in the comfort of their own home with near-guaranteed success is cheap and widely available. That's what autonomy looks like, not forcing someone to pay out of pocket for a doctor to do the exact same shit.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv74s1d",
                    "author": "JJJSchmidt_etAl",
                    "body": "In general, the right to make your own choices should come first. However, there can be some perverse incentives which we have to keep in mind.\n\nWhat happens when medical professionals push euthanasia because it's more cost effective and easier for them?\n\n[The Guardian -   This article is more than 1 year old Are Canadians being driven to assisted suicide by poverty or healthcare crisis?](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws)",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv76mid",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Is it not coat effective to have a repeat customer?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv74s1d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv78vde",
                    "author": "Bostonlbi",
                    "body": "I watched an interesting \u201cFact-checked debate\u201d about this recently.  It\u2019s sorta specific to Canada, but a lot is generally applicable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJAklSh_rjk",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv7cx37",
                    "author": "Stevite",
                    "body": "The only people who really care if you kill your self, besides your friends and family ( maybe) and some religious zealots, are the people who stand to make money by keeping you alive. Life insurance companies, hospitals, nursing homes, etc. Can\u2019t have grandma off herself when Medicare will pay for heart surgery, a lengthy ICU stay and rehab. Oh, and that\u2019s before the nursing homes bleeds you for every penny, leaving you destitute. I forgot to mention the drugs\u2026all the drugs. You\u2019re worth more alive than dead. The only reason for your continued existence is to feed the machine. The  ethical arguments about suicide are bullshit. All you gotta do is follow the money",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv7mo84",
                    "author": "Recent_Ad_4358",
                    "body": "Patients experience tremendous guilt for being a burden on their loved ones and might consent to being euthanized when they otherwise would not because of external pressure. Many, MANY men leave their terminally ill wives, so what\u2019s stopping them from simply pressuring these women into killings themselves? Not every terminally ill person is in a great place in their family or community. There is a lot more to terminal illness and end of life than simply a rational decision to kill oneself. \nI think a better solution is greatly increase proper palliative care and the quality of life for the terminally ill.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv80eap",
                    "author": "Top_Airline_4476",
                    "body": "move to canada",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv834q4",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Proves you didn't read the post. I literally said im in Canada",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv80eap"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv81i1t",
                    "author": "jmilan3",
                    "body": "I do not see the humanity in forcing a person to suffer until they die naturally, sometimes they suffer in absolutely horrific, unbearable  physical and or emotional pain. I don\u2019t want to die like that. Let me go quickly.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv82fw1",
                    "author": "Art_Music306",
                    "body": "If you\u2019d do it for a dog, out of mercy, I hope you\u2019d do the same for me. It\u2019s the definition of humane. Laws are not always so kind.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv85dkm",
                    "author": "golf-lip",
                    "body": "And you don't think the people administering euthanasia to people who want to kill themselves for whatever reason wouldn't affect that Healthcare professionals mental state like your argument about ptsd from people jumping off buildings?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv88bec",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Its no different than any other worker in emergency or palliative care and what not. And I work in health care. look up respiratory therapists. A lot of them pull the plug all the time. We health care workers know what we sign up for. Banning care just because the worker is uncomfortable is like banning abortion because the doctor is pro life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv85dkm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8cgbk",
                    "author": "panty_lover_1234",
                    "body": "nobody with brains disagrees.  only the christians and muslims care, but they're not really thinking humans.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8etrk",
                    "author": "tangofoxtrot1989",
                    "body": "Legitimate question. Could healthcare professionals who\u2019ve taken the Hippocratic oath actually assist with this?\n\nI suppose it\u2019s all under the aegis of what \u201charm\u201d is insofar as \u201cdo no harm\u201d is concerned but I\u2019d be curious to hear thoughts from someone who\u2019s sworn that oath.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8m2ke",
                    "author": "Bobolinsky",
                    "body": "The Canadian government is offering assisted suicide because their wating lists for surgeries that would alleviate pain are too long.\n\nAssisted suicide is also a much cheaper option for the Canadian government.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8n5xy",
                    "author": "GorillaBrown",
                    "body": "What's your stance of minors going through human anatomy altering, transition surgical procedures?",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8wqb3",
                    "author": "abhople",
                    "body": "Freedom and consent is one thing. But the moment you get government sign a law into having a doctor assist you to die, the line between freedom and law is blurred. This sets an example into signing new laws of involving kids into the mix. \u201cMaid\u201d in canada does the same where kids can consent to this without parent\u2019s permission. Anything legal does not mean it is right.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8ybfy",
                    "author": "AFuckingTrainwreck_",
                    "body": "I agree solely in the case of terminal illness. \n\nTo your point of freedom and consent, people in that state of mind do not think clearly and cannot reasonably weigh their options. It's the same reason someone under the influence cannot consent to sex, and children for that matter. To **that** point, what if someone makes the decision whilst under the influence? \n\nAs someone with multiple previous suicide attempts, in the case of depression or other mental illness causing suicidality, it should not be allowed to go on. We need to help the people get better, not end their life, and their very possible bright future. In one of my attempts I was under heavy influence of drugs, and was not in the right state of mind to make a literal life-ending decision. There is a solution to our crisis. This is not the way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv8z3e1",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "why is the suffering of a cancer patient Ok to end but not someone suffering depression?.\n\nI'm sorry that happened to you. But not everyone is depressed because of drugs. you are saying possible bright future. So what. Its not your future. You are basically telling people to gamble on your terms. Are you going to bear the consequences when there is no bright future? Of course not. There's no possible way..\n\nI'm sorry I just don't see why freedom shouldn't be valued the most. I can't and should tell people what to so with their bodies if its not affecting others. We don't stop alcoholics. Drug users. Smokers. \n\nwhy should medical procedures be any different/",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jv8ybfy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv96tot",
                    "author": "Top_Airline_4476",
                    "body": "i read it after dumb dumb",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv9fsrn",
                    "author": "ShadowDurza",
                    "body": "Well...\n\nThere are certain cases that can really make make you think.\n\nThere are people with physical and mental deformities so severe that they pretty much spend 50-60 years of their life in a fetal position in a crib. Human torsos basically.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv9ql6r",
                    "author": "LebaneseDemonLobster",
                    "body": "A good point here might be that it's difficult to consistently reject legalised euthanasia while also approving of state capital punishment.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jv9z88e",
                    "author": "Tide__Hunter",
                    "body": "Under ideal circumstances, I think that people being allowed to ask for and receive a painless and calm death if that is what they really want is perfectly acceptable. The problem I have with legal euthanasia is the same problem I have with the death penalty: It's never ideal. \n\nYou talk about being in Canada, and there's been some pretty big controversies about that. Many of the people who have been put on the path of euthanasia or who have been suggested euthanasia are not people who want to end their own life at all. Rather, the system was a complete and utter failure, and euthanasia gave those who should be helping them an excuse to just tell them to die instead. \n\nSomebody here already mentioned veterans, but those aren't all. [This Guardian article](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws) on the topic offers a rather nuanced take on this situation. To summarize though, there were some high profile cases of Canadian women with a condition called multiple chemical sensitivity, which rendered them incapable of working, and the income they were receiving due to disability payments was way below the poverty line. Because they were unable to receive suitable housing to compensate for their conditions while living on a minuscule amount of income, they used MAID to die. \n\nThe article makes it clear, experts said that these situations should be used to push for better care for those with debilitating conditions. From my perspective however, MAID's role in this situation was to shield the Canadian government from responsibility. As one of the women feature in that story said, \u201cThe government sees \\[her\\] as expendable trash, a complainer, useless and a pain in the ass.\u201d MAID was there to take the \"expendable trash\" out, after she had nowhere left to turn. \n\nI don't necessarily think there should not be any legal access to euthanasia. But under the current systems, much more emphasis should be placed on mitigation of the circumstances that lead to people seeking it. Its existence feels like it gives the Canadian government room *to* fail its people, since if the level of care isn't enough to keep them from being in constant waking misery, even when they could do more to keep people from that point, they can just get funneled into the lethal injection line.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jva1ua1",
                    "author": "Gauntlets28",
                    "body": "I think my main concern is whether elderly people could be coerced by their unpleasant relatives into being euthanised. I can absolutely foresee a world in which that could happen, particularly if someone in a position of power over them wants to get hold of the inheritance.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvau05t",
                    "author": "pinkpunkpugtb",
                    "body": "nobody with brains disagrees.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvbj19x",
                    "author": "AnxietyOctopus",
                    "body": "The only way this works is if you have entirely free and accessible healthcare.  Right now, even in Canada (where I\u2019m also from) it\u2019s a lot easier to get treatment for mental health issues if you have money.  If we start offering medically assisted dying for depressed people the way things stand now?  You are killing poor people because it\u2019s cheaper than getting us the help we need.  \nThis is a personal issue for me; I\u2019ve been chronically depressed and suicidal since I was twelve.  I\u2019m thirty-three.  It\u2019s only in the last three years that I found a medication that stabilizes me, and that\u2019s a fucking revelation.  If assisted suicide had been available for me throughout my twenties I would be dead.  And even though I wanted to die, I didn\u2019t actually want to die.  I wanted to stop feeling the way I felt, and suicide seemed like the easiest way to make it all stop.  The medical system would have failed me a lot harder than it already did if it had offered me that out.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvc05oa",
                    "author": "Pantyraid-7",
                    "body": "Bless you. Thanks for sticking it out. The world needs more you",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvbj19x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvbx9ki",
                    "author": "TooRational101",
                    "body": "Thank the self righteous Christians who have no trouble telling us what we can and can\u2019t do. These bloody assholes create laws to block us from what should be a basic human right.",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvc4nyk",
                    "author": "ItsMalikBro",
                    "body": "The problem is there is a clear financial incentive to encourage people to kill themselves.   \n\n\nThe majority of your healthcare cost comes during the final 5 years of your life. If your government can convince you suicide is the answer, then they save insane amounts of money.  Improving the length and quality of your life just means a bigger fiscal burden for the government.   \n\n\nIt is unsurprising then that Canada keeps expanding the eligibility of their suicide program.   \n\n\n>My second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands.\n\nThe government has an incentive to \"fail\" and keep failing. If failing saves Canada tons of money and resources, so why would they ever \"fix\" things?",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvc8geq",
                    "author": "azure_monster",
                    "body": "While I personally do not have much to comment on this issue, I thought this video might Interest you.\n\n[VOX: A fact-checked debate about euthanasia](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TJAklSh_rjk&t=511s&pp=ygUYdm94IGV1dGhhbmFzaWEgaW4gY2FuYWRh)",
                    "date": "2023-08-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jveuowd",
                    "author": "Sher-Locked3224",
                    "body": "I do agree with this whole concept. \n\nBut think of this from the perspective of law, \n\nIt will be immensely difficult to draw a contract completely legal. This method could be used wrongfully by sooo many wrong doers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvgjmc4",
                    "author": "Narrow-Help9352",
                    "body": "***\"Sarco Pod Promises a Humane Death within 5 to 10 Minutes\"*** \n\nThe Dutch were already selected a few years ago to develop the global future of death tech! Check it out for yourselves \u27a1\u27a1\u27a1 [The Sacro Project](http://www.exitinternational.net/sarco/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvgogqs",
                    "author": "Neeko673",
                    "body": "Should only be allowed to those with diagnosed painful and fatal diseases. People that are suicidal or mentally Ill just take one bad day in a different state of mind to take their life. The fact people have to do it themselves and cant ensure success keeps 99% of people from even attempting",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvgoszp",
                    "author": "Neeko673",
                    "body": "Plus nearly over 50% of trans people would now be dead if this was allowed. Somewhere near 50% have attempted suicide or were about to. Imagine if you had this 100% fail safe option just by signing a form",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvgogqs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvgzyk9",
                    "author": "CristianMorenoI",
                    "body": "I think that everyone is free to choose any decision about themselves, if someone is bored with themselves, this person could decide if that moment will end on a specific day, nobody knows if this person had deep wounds inside and maybe nobody can heal. From another point of view, if the Doctor doesn't want to do it, he is free to decide if he wants to or not, remembering that the Doctors promised to save lives, not kill people.",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvhs7cd",
                    "author": "Unlucky-Soup6983",
                    "body": "I agree with you. If a person wants to die they should have that choice. If they can't do it alone they should be able to get help. But someone should have proof that they actually wanted to.otherwise people will be able to say they killed someone because they wanted to die.",
                    "date": "2023-08-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvpqfyx",
                    "author": "Crafty-Bunch-2675",
                    "body": ">So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nThere is no specific time limit on \"fixing your life\" Some of the most famous businessmen\n\nSome people on incel forums speak  of \"ending it\" because of the lack of intimacy in their life. Some of these people have complicated issues of financial struggle, bad habits and lack of self esteem which would all have to be resolved in order to fix \"the issue\" that is something that could take several years.\n\nOnce you put a timelines on the therapy needed, you are also setting up an incentive to shorten the timeline.\n\n>My second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands.\n\nSome of the reasons for MAID I have seen in the news are economic things like a person facing homelessness.\n\nDo you really think legalized euthanasia will give the government **more** incentive to take care of its people or less ?\n\nThe answer is less. All this will do is make the govt more lazy to solve socioeconomic problems. \n\n>My third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent.\n\nAs many others have pointed out; by the very nature of what s**cide is ...it is an unenforceable law. There is nothing stopping a person from doing it if they want. There is no way to \"arrest\" a person for s**cide. So there is no freedom or consent in question.\n\nThe only thing legalized Euthanasia does is pervert the function of government and medicine by giving the government and the medical industry an incentive to stop trying to help people. That is why it is so dangerous.\n\nWhy spend millions of dollars on cancer research when you can just offer MAID to cancer patients once they become terminal ?\n\nIn fact.. we can even take it a logical step further..  why offer any medical assistance to a gravely ill person, when you could just coach them into accepting MAID instead ? Less effort right?\n\nAnd on the government side:\n\nWhy spend millions of dollars to provide socioeconomic structures for citizens to lead fulfilling lives... when you can just offer MAID  instead ?\n\nTLDR;\n**Self deletion is an unenforceable law, there is no question of freedom or consent. Legalized euthanasia on the other hand, take that power away from the individual and gives it to an external body. Once you do that, it removes all incentives to improve society because it is easier to remove the weak than to try to improve conditions for everybody**",
                    "date": "2023-08-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2q87iu",
                    "author": "seekenG123",
                    "body": "Hi can anyone tell me the best way to do this. is morphine one of the best or can you use other meds",
                    "date": "2023-09-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15kmtfo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "hat's it. My view is simple. However, to expand why I think so. I think if someone wants to die, they have a fatal condition or they hate life. Now, I know some things are temporary, and that it can be fixed. So I propose that government give them one year of therapy etc. If they still want to die they should be allowed to. \n\nMy second reason is, if the government has failed them, then the least the government can do is not punish the helper and them for taking matters into their own hands. Morally speaking, for example, if there was a town for whatever reason, think wild west, with no sherrif or the sheriff is literally sitting on his/her ass all day, I have no problem morally if everyone went all 'batman'. \n\nMy third reason is, and probably the most important one, freedom and consent. If it's proven that there was no coercision etc. then the doctor or whoever shouldn't be arrested. \n\nThats why I believe it's better to legalize it. There would be institutions to make sure that \n\nNow for background. I'm in canada. We already have checks in place for fatal conditions, I see nothing wrong with expanding it. \n\nBut really the heart of the matter is, I don't see why the government should have a say what I do with my body. I am of the principle if it doesn't remove someone elses freedoms or rights, then it should be ok. I took nothing from my neighbour by dying. Breaking in and entering takes away their right to safety. My freedom to die does not impede on your freedoms.",
                    "date": "2023-08-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I see nothing wrong with legalized euthanasia",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15kmtfo/cmv_i_see_nothing_wrong_with_legalized_euthanasia/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8wki3m",
                    "author": "clatscanemike",
                    "body": "People are just so stubborn and Satanic.",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15kmtfo"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzkhl4",
                "author": "Kotoperek",
                "body": "The problem with debating Christianity from outside of the Christian paradigm won't convince Christians, but once you enter their paradigm, you've already lost the debate. \n\nThere is a fundamental conflict of basic axioms. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God with 100% certainty, that's the basis of faith. To be a Christian you have to *believe* that God exists without absolute proof and take that as a starting point of any argument, not something to be proven. On the other hand, if you do *not believe* that God exists, you can also never provide a 100% certain proof, because negatives are notoriously hard to prove. The lack of evidence for the existence of God is not strictly logically evidence for the non-existence of God, but for many people it is enough to not *believe* in his existence. \n\nSo once you argue with a Christian as if God existend, you've lost the debate by accepting their basic axiom. If you insist on your lack of belief, they ask for proof and will never be satisfied with whatever reasons you give since they are at odds with their *fundamental view of the world*. Those debates are unwinnable either direction - the Christians won't convince a confident atheist for the same reasons. You don't have to justify your lack of faith. Some people have it, some people don't. You can criticise it very consistently as a non-believer, but you won't \"win\" (as in - convince) with believers. It's not some genius, foolproof plot, it's just defaulting to different base assumptions and then making you feel like these assumptions are the same.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzodlr",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">So once you argue with a Christian as if God existend, you've lost the debate by accepting their basic axiom. If you insist on your lack of belief, they ask for proof and will never be satisfied with whatever reasons you give since they are at odds with their fundamental view of the world. Those debates are unwinnable either direction - the Christians won't convince a confident atheist for the same reasons. \n\n!delta\n\nClosed-minded people cannot be defeated by open-minded people. But if they're up against a closed-minded person on the other side, then the fight will be entertaining to watch.\n\n>You don't have to justify your lack of faith. Some people have it, some people don't. You can criticise it very consistently as a non-believer, but you won't \"win\" (as in - convince) with believers. It's not some genius, foolproof plot, it's just defaulting to different base assumptions and then making you feel like these assumptions are the same.\n\nI consider my lack of faith as a disability akin to being unable to read. Being unable to believe is a huge drag on my life and forces me to defend my view in debates I can't win.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzkhl4"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzog25",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kotoperek ([30\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Kotoperek)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzodlr"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvznxbu",
                "author": "Eli_Siav_Knox",
                "body": "You\u2019re looking at this entire thing wrong my friend. By \u201cdebating\u201d you are losing a priori. Maybe this is an American thing of whatnot but where I\u2019m from when we consider that the person we\u2019re arguing with has fairy tale thinking, we don\u2019t grace them with an argument. All systems of indoctrination do this thing where they establish this entirely false notion that their \u201ctruth\u201d is the pre-existing one and you need to debate against it. When the truth is their \u201ctruth\u201d is barely holding on to any semblance of reality and logic and by agreeing to  engage with it  you are transporting your entire debate into their playing field. What could you possibly say to a person that has chosen to believe a fairy tale against absolutely all rules of logic and is invested in keeping up this charade ? They are not beholden to the same rules of logic you are beholden to, they can use any bad faith argument they want, at which point is it really a debate anymore ? Your stance should be what my stance has always been about organized religion : which is that I do not engage in debates with people I consider not very smart or otherwise psychologically weak and predisposed to magical thinking to calm their existential dread. If they need it , I respect it, I hope it helps them, I don\u2019t need it, and I refuse to spend a minute of my life explaining why me, the person who doesn\u2019t need emotional crutches, doesn\u2019t need them. I just don\u2019t. And neither do you.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzuwvo",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">All systems of indoctrination do this thing where they establish this entirely false notion that their \u201ctruth\u201d is the pre-existing one and you need to debate against it.\n\n!delta\n\nThey might not like being told that their faith is indoctrination, but that's exactly what it is. I've tried debating anti-vaxxers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists in the past, and their indoctrination is so strong that they dismiss the evidence I give them. The premise of my post, namely that they have better rebuttals, was wrong, because what was needed here is deprogramming, not debate.\n\n> When the truth is their \u201ctruth\u201d is barely holding on to any semblance of reality and logic and by agreeing to engage with it you are transporting your entire debate into their playing field. What could you possibly say to a person that has chosen to believe a fairy tale against absolutely all rules of logic and is invested in keeping up this charade ?They are not beholden to the same rules of logic you are beholden to, they can use any bad faith argument they want, at which point is it really a debate anymore ?\n\nI can't think of something to say, can you? They can dodge and deflect anything, so because we don't live in an ideal world, I might as well just dodge them since their rules are not my rules.\n\n>If they need it , I respect it, I hope it helps them, I don\u2019t need it, and I refuse to spend a minute of my life explaining why me, the person who doesn\u2019t need emotional crutches, doesn\u2019t need them. I just don\u2019t. And neither do you.\r  \n\r\n\nI'd much rather live and let live than need to debate these people.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvznxbu"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzuza5",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Eli_Siav_Knox ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Eli_Siav_Knox)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzuwvo"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzqs9t",
                "author": "Poly_and_RA",
                "body": "Why do you think that you're \"trapped\" and need to \"win\" debates in order to be allowed to simply live your life like you want, including such things as NOT\u00a0going to mass and supporting LGBT rights?\n\nSimply stop attending and offer the support. It's unlikely that anyone challenge you on it, but if they do nothing stops you from simply saying that you simply don't want to attend. You don't owe anyone a justification for wanting and not wanting things. \n\nYou seem very deeply indoctrinated here though. Christianity doesn't have a \"rebuttal\"\u00a0to everything. Instead their beliefs are a mixture of ideas common in a wide variety of beliefs and also common among atheists, and religious claims for which no evidence whatsoever exist.\n\n* Forgiveness, kindness, honesty and so on are virtues: common claim in lots of different faiths and among atheists, thus NOT\u00a0values christianity has any monopoly on.\n* Jesus was the son of God and came back from the dead: Religious claim that contradicts all available evidence and for which there is zero credible evidence.\n* Murder is bad: common claim in lots of different faiths and among atheists. Not a value that Christianity has a monopoly on.\n* Having sex with someone of the same gender is a \"sin\" and God disapproves of it: Religious claim that lacks rational justification and for which there is zero credible evidence.\n\nIt's like this with literally all parts of Christianity. There are many parts that are sensible and that most folks agree with -- but those parts aren't unique to Christianity. Then there's some parts that are religious in nature, those aren't all unique to Christianity either, but in addition to that they lack any credible evidence.\n\nWhich makes sense, that's why it's a \\*faith\\* not a \\*science\\*\n\nBut take away the faith, and the only parts that it still makes sense to adhere to, are those that can be rationally justified WITHOUT simply asserting that something is a sin or a virtue because God says so.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzyq5l",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Simply stop attending and offer the support. It's unlikely that anyone challenge you on it, but if they do nothing stops you from simply saying that you simply don't want to attend. You don't owe anyone a justification for wanting and not wanting things.\n\nSee the first 2 links of the post details. I did try exactly that, and was challenged on it, and I lost both times.\n\n>You seem very deeply indoctrinated here though. Christianity doesn't have a \"rebuttal\"\u00a0to everything. Instead their beliefs are a mixture of ideas common in a wide variety of beliefs and also common among atheists, and religious claims for which no evidence whatsoever exist.  \n>  \n>Forgiveness, kindness, honesty and so on are virtues: common claim in lots of different faiths and among atheists, thus NOT\u00a0values christianity has any monopoly on.\n\nI used to be a lot more indoctrinated. [Being exposed to church lies and hypocrisy was a key moment in destroying my faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenChristian/comments/1575mgo/comment/jt34yet/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\n>Which makes sense, that's why it's a \\*faith\\* not a \\*science\\*\r  \n\r\n\nI didn't claim that Christianity was a science, only that it's hard to debate against.\n\n>But take away the faith, and the only parts that it still makes sense to adhere to, are those that can be rationally justified WITHOUT simply asserting that something is a sin or a virtue because God says so.\r  \n\r\n\n!delta\n\nBecause this addresses the core point. Everything good about Christianity can either be justified without religion, or is not unique. Everything else is hard to prove.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzqs9t"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzyt9q",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Poly_and_RA ([10\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Poly_and_RA)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzyq5l"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzrfxp",
                "author": "Fun_Year3765",
                "body": "Lack of faith in a Christian paradigm doesn\u2019t need to be for debate. Religions are a faith based system. \n\nIt might be more interesting for you to look at the nature of belief and philosophy is going to help with that. Don\u2019t get into the mud puddle over it. \n\nReligions aren\u2019t necessarily designed by a genius. IMO the truth of it offers a nicer and more ironic view. The religions that have survived have evolved to have barbs built into them that trap the believer. Example: most surviving religions have names for outsiders that are condescending - hieratic, infidel, gentile, etc. They also often have serious consequences for anyone that doesn\u2019t believe. Usually an eternity of torment or a great reward for compliance. These systems of belief have survived therefore they posses attributes that help them survive. There are many dead religions. I\u2019m not even going to get into the politics of the religions over history and what was done to outsiders.\n\nIf you\u2019re not wired for faith, don\u2019t sweat it. Understand that you already are likely to be subscribing to ideological belief systems. Philosophy may help you to see those signs as well.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw00f3a",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Religions aren\u2019t necessarily designed by a genius. IMO the truth of it offers a nicer and more ironic view. The religions that have survived have evolved to have barbs built into them that trap the believer. Example: most surviving religions have names for outsiders that are condescending - hieratic, infidel, gentile, etc. They also often have serious consequences for anyone that doesn\u2019t believe. Usually an eternity of torment or a great reward for compliance. These systems of belief have survived therefore they posses attributes that help them survive. There are many dead religions. I\u2019m not even going to get into the politics of the religions over history and what was done to outsiders.\n\n!delta\n\nI shouldn't have said that Christianity was \"fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses\". I should have written that it was written by fearmongers, and fearmongering works. And even on Reddit, [they're still fearmongering](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv7q4jc/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzrfxp"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw00hui",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Fun_Year3765 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Fun_Year3765)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw00f3a"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvztgg4",
                "author": "Happy-Viper",
                "body": "**The Brother**\n\n>It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - see here\r\n\n... were you?\n\nLike, where's the outwitting? Where's the good design? The Bible does, quite literally, endorse slavery. Christianity was the main religion of many slave-owning countries. This is just a falsehood being claimed that you haven't challenged. \n\nThe idea that he can just reverse the burden of proof, and claim you have to prove Christianity DIDN'T invent altruism, which again, an absurd idea... it's just bad reasoning, and entirely untrue. We've studied altruism in rats, for god's sake, of course it's natural.\n\nWe have evidence of the sick being cared for, not just the sick but the permanently disabled, thousands of years ago.\n\nThis is just a dude making things up, and you not challenging any of it. The concepts of love, compassion, kindness, there's literally zero evidence any of that arose with Christianity. \n\nThese are fundamentally just terrible arguments. It's making things up, trying to reverse the burden of proof, and that's about it.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n**The Priest**\n\n>Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - see here.\r  \n\r\n\nSo already, the first argument isn't really anything. \"It's healthier to believe X\" isn't an argument for X. I presume my mental health would be better if I believed all sorts of things, and I'd live a healthier life. That doesn't make those things true.\n\nAnd in looking at the definition they use... religion doesn't even come into it:\n\n>spiritual health has\r been defined as a state of being where an individual is able\r to deal with day\u2011to\u2011day life issues in a manner that leads to\r the realization of one\u2019s full potential, meaning and purpose\r of life and fulfilment from within. \n\nSo, no supernatural required. Just good mental health. \n\nBut, let's look to the priest.\n\n>It doesn't matter if you are going to church insincerely because you aren't able to believe in God, what matters is you go\r  \n\r  \nMother Teresa had a phase where she felt no connection to God, but she kept trying until she eventually found God\r  \n\r  \nYou will never be able to find God if you stop coming to church\r  \n\r  \nDeveloping resentment is not a reason not to go to church, because there is no good reason to stop going to church\n\nAgain... how do you think you were outwit?\n\nThe clam here is just \"You should find God and go to Church.\" It's all just claims, these aren't arguments. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n**The LGBT**\n\n>Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account\" - and what do you know, I still lost because there are Christian rebuttals for that too.\r\r\n\nWhat rebuttals are here?\n\nThe only ones I can see are: \n\n1. God didn't make people lie, their hearts did! Their hearts... which were created by God, ultimately.\n2. This dude's faith means he won't ever criticize the Bible.\n\nNone of these are outwitting. None of it is a well-designed ideology.\n\nNone of these were good arguments, and many weren't even arguments. Just a dude telling you \"Nah, you should believe in God\" and you not responding, or just straight-up lies. None of these people outwitted you at any point.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw06oa7",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">This is just a dude making things up, and you not challenging any of it. The concepts of love, compassion, kindness, there's literally zero evidence any of that arose with Christianity.\n\nThat's because he challenged me to debate him out of the blue, while I was busy. I didn't have the time to read further, but even if I did, he'd ask me to prove that my examples aren't \"fringe\" (e.g. that charity before Christianity was common and not something that just existed on paper). Also, the article he cited was written by pro-Catholic historian Tom Holland, who unsurprisingly worded his article to be hard to debunk.\n\n>The clam here is just \"You should find God and go to Church.\" It's all just claims, these aren't arguments.  \n>  \n>This dude's faith means he won't ever criticize the Bible.\r  \n\r\n\n!delta\n\nIn the first debate, any unbacked claims I made were immediately rejected. It's only fair that I get to do the same to others, right?",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvztgg4"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw06rk5",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Happy-Viper ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Happy-Viper)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw06oa7"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzvbun",
                "author": "NatchoFriend",
                "body": "I don't think I can change your mind, but I recommend you look up Matt Dillahunty and his call show \"the atheist experience\". He is an excellent debater, and although he kinda loses his shit at times, he always manages to corner religious people by exposing the fallacies they use. I've started using many of his arguments and examples in my own discussions and found that it led to some less frustrating exchanges. People usually end up saying \"well it's my personal choice\" which indicates that their arguments stopped holding any weight because of my counters.\n\nExplaining concepts such as the burden of proof and secular morality in unbiased terms goes a long way in my experience.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw09q7t",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">I don't think I can change your mind, but I recommend you look up Matt Dillahunty and his call show \"the atheist experience\". He is an excellent debater, and although he kinda loses his shit at times, he always manages to corner religious people by exposing the fallacies they use. I've started using many of his arguments and examples in my own discussions and found that it led to some less frustrating exchanges. People usually end up saying \"well it's my personal choice\" which indicates that their arguments stopped holding any weight because of my counters.\n\n!delta\n\nI have watched some videos of The Atheist Experience. In the 3 debates I linked, I knew my opponents were using tactics like Gish Gallop, and No True Scotsman. But I also knew that whether or not I called out my opponents, they have yet more tricks up their sleeve to counter me. I don't have the time or tenacity for endless debates, so it usually ends at a point where I am \"losing\", instead of me grinding them down until they can say \"well it's my personal choice\".",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzvbun"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw09u97",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/NatchoFriend ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/NatchoFriend)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw09q7t"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jvzw4w9",
                "author": "Ok_Abroad9642",
                "body": "Maybe you just lack knowledge and debating skills???\n\n# Debate With Brother\n\n>In the pagan world: Imperfect children were killed, slaves were seen as possessions, to be used as one wished, weak and poor had no rights\n\nAll of these things were done by Christians and non-Christians (In fact, you can see God commanding these things in OT Law. Exodus 21:2 states that \"the slave is \\[the owner's\\] money\"). The modern idea of human rights did come from a Protestant (John Locke), but many of his contemporaries who both developed the idea and argued for it were probably deistic. On top of that, John Locke's ideas were most certainly not completely from the bible, since Protestants existed for around a century during John Locke's times and could not come up with that idea.\n\n>\\[insert Roman example here\\]\n\nIt would be very difficult to argue that one act of kindness from a Christian community in Rome had anything to do with the origin of modern concepts of \"Western\" values. Irrelevant example for the topic of the debate.\n\n>Buddhist 'compassion'...surrounding culture\n\nPaul himself did not do good for the good itself. He specifically states in Scripture multiple times that he looked towards the reward promised to him by god. Since Paul is highly regarded to be the highest example of a Christian by Christians themselves, it is theologically inaccurate to state that a Christian should and does do good purely for the good itself.\n\n>No...You cannot derive goodness from the world or society...Because that would result in relativity and different notions of goodness/badness...Christianity believes in objective good\n\nThis is in response to you asking if one could do good without being involved in religion. Your brother pre-supposes a definition of good that suits him best. \"Good\" is what is morally correct. Most moral systems try to describe moral behavior in humans. Moral behavior in humans is evolved (Read \"The Evolution of Moral Dispositions in the Human Species by Dennis L Krebs). So depending on what moral system you follow, it is possible for you to do \"good.\" It is a severe blunder on your end to let your brother define what good is.\n\n>Otherwise...prove it\n\nYour brother assumes that all atheists must be subjective moralists. This is wrong. Your brother defines objective morality as \"not something that changes from person to person or culture to culture\". In this case, a strict deontologist or ethical egoist would be considered objective morality, since their a universalist deontologist would believe that their rules apply to everybody.\n\n>The Catholic Church and Christianity has ALWAYS been against slavery - you know this is true! - in Scripture and it's teachines\n\nOT law explicitly states that slaves are a man's property. NT Paul states that slaves should be obedient to their owners. You cannot tell me that \"Oh since the Bible teaches you to be kind, it implicitly opposes slavery.\" This is stupid. The Bible teaches you to be kind, and then explicitly condones slavery. If I say \"be kind to other people\" and see you punch someone in the face and say to the victim \"Get punched again, bitch\" and to you \"punch lighter\", then you cannot say that I'm \"implicitly against punching people in the face\"\n\n>...this was always explicitly against Catholicism, as per Scripture (Gal 3:28)\n\nYour brother is the worst bible interpreter I have ever seen. WTF. This verse is not saying that slaves should not exist, in the same way that it is not saying Jews or Greeks should not or do not exist. If this verse is opposed to slaves, then it is also opposed to Jews and Greeks, because it uses the same phrase and grammatical structure. It is saying that instead of emphasizing differences such as race or social status, one should see each other as unified Christians, as brothers and sisters under Jesus Christ. This is the correct interpretation. Galations was written by Paul. Ephesians was also written by Paul. In Ephesian 5:5, Paul tells Slaves to obey their masters \"just as you would obey Christ\" and that doing so would be \"doing the will of God from your heart.\" In Ephesians 5:9, Paul tells slave owners to treat their slaves well and without favoritism. Nobody, nobody, nobody will interpret this as \"Slavery is wrong 100% and you should free all your slaves or you are sinning\". This verse alone tells use that the intention of Gal 3:28 was not to oppose slavery, because if that was the case Paul would have opposed slavery in his letter to Ephesus as well. Things get even worse with Philemon, also written by Paul. In there, he SENDS AN ESCAPED SLAVE BACK. Paul does not imply to Philemon to free Onesimus. If your brother argues that verse 16 implies Philemon to free Onesimus, kindly tell your brother that he needs to take Bible literacy 101 classes ASAP. Similar to Gal 3:28, Paul is emphasizing that both Onesimus and Philemon are BROTHERS IN CHRIST, and that that is the primary nature of their relationship. Prior to that, the nature of their relationship was that of a slave and master. Don't get me wrong, Onesimus would still be the slave of Philemon, it's just that the nature of their relationship was supposed to emphasize spiritual brotherhood. Some CAN argue that verse 21's \"even more\" IMPLIES freedom. Even if the chapter IMPLIES freedom, Paul is not EXPLICITLY against slavery. On top of that, I HIGHLY DOUBT that Paul is EXPLICITLY requesting freedom, because in Ephesians, he doesn't even imply freedom, and especially he is not explicitly requesting freedom for all slaves. Even if Paul tells Philemon to free Onesimus, that still doesn't reflect Paul's true view on slavery, because Philemon is a more specific letter, and Paul clearly has a positive relationship with Philemon, whereas in Ephesians, which has a verse explicitly for all Christian slave owners, Paul doesn't even mention or imply freedom.\n\nTLDR: Your brother argued like a bitch but you were too novice to catch on.\n\n# Debate with Priest\n\n>What about spiritual health? The health experts at the WHO say it's essential.\n\nSpiritual health has nothing to do with spiritual things actually existing.\n\n>To which he told me that I was extremely arrogant to spit on the beliefs of billions without any scientific evidence to back my point.\n\nYour catholic brother shits on protestants, hindus, buddhists, muslims and many more. Arrogant asshole he is, according to himself. You cannot use \"scientific evidence\" to show that a god does not exist. That a god does not exist is a default position. You have to show that a god does exist, something no religious person has successfully done.\n\nPeople shit on Christianity and atheists for not being \"open minded\" Is it shocking to you that other people can be wrong? Open minded means a lack of bias and willingness to accept new ideas on the basis of logical thought, not prejudice. Accepting every single religion as true is not only not open minded, but usually impossible since the vast majority of Christianity and Islam are not compatible. They cannot be true at once.\n\n# LGBT\n\nYour post didn't include any debate. I'm not digging through the comments section to debunk.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw0asbd",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nI didn't study history, religion or philosophy at a tertiary level and it shows. There was a lot more context behind the scenes that could be used to defeat the arguments I faced, and I was too dumb to find them.\n\n> Is it shocking to you that other people can be wrong?\n\nI am well aware that other people can be wrong, but I'm also the sort of person who lost confidence in their own ability to be right due to their own history of failure.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jvzw4w9"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw0auvx",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ok_Abroad9642 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Ok_Abroad9642)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw0asbd"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw00fq9",
                "author": "FaceInJuice",
                "body": "To begin, I want to clarify that I have not reviewed the full scope of the context you have provided here.  I've read a fair bit of it, but it's definitely possible that you may have already addressed some of my point.  If that is the case, please forgive me.  \nThat being said, there are a few different points I'd like to raise.  \n1. First and foremost, you shouldn't feel obligated to defend your position in these scenarios at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I'm reading, it doesn't sound like any of these Christian arguments are actually persuading you of anything.  You're admiring the thoroughness of the ideology, but it doesn't sound like you're getting any closer to actually believing it.  That being the case \u2013 I'm not sure what you're gaining by engaging.  \nYou've talked a little bit about being 'forced' to defend your view.  And I know that it can feel that way in life.  But you can also say this, or paraphrase this: \u201cI acknowledge your beliefs, and I respect that I will not be able to change your mind about them.  However, I also don't believe you will be able to persuade me of them. I thank you for your interest in sharing them with me, but I politely decline to discuss them further.\u201d  And if they press beyond that \u2013 they are being disrespectful, and you should feel no guilt about just walking away.    \nNow, I don't know how old you are.  From your notes, it sounds like your brother is pressuring you into going to Church, and if you're too young to be able to just say no \u2013 I'm sorry.  That really sucks.  But I stand by this point \u2013 pick a fight with your brother if you want to.  He's pressuring you into obeying a doctrine you do not support or believe, and as far as I am concerned, that is deeply immoral.    \n2. If you do choose to engage, as is obviously your right \u2013 you may want to reexamine your approach to those conversations.  You talk about 'winning' and 'losing', but the truth is, outside of very structured debate stages with moderators and judges, most arguments aren't really 'won' and 'lost' that cleanly. Especially not when it comes to topics like this.  People's religious beliefs are often deeply entrenched.  \nSo if you want to have these conversations, I would encourage you to consider a different mentality.  Instead of thinking 'I want to beat this person in a debate', think 'I would like to learn more about this person's perspective, and expand my understanding of my own perspective with that context in mind.'  That way, you're not spending so much energy on pushing toward potentially unrealistic conclusions, and instead you can focus on trying to make something productive happen.  \n3. If you do insist on looking at these in terms of winning and losing \u2013 don't just think about your goals; think about theirs.  Presumably, their goal is to inspire faith in you. It seems they have failed to do so.  That being the case, how can you say that they won?  \n4. If you do choose to try to 'win' these arguments \u2013 you may want to reexamine your definition of 'winning' and 'losing'.    \nYou talk about how Christians have an answer to everything.  This is probably true, but keep in mind that not all answers are created equal.  Just because they have an argument doesn't mean it is a good argument.    \nFor example, consider the following snippet from your screenshot:  \n\u201cAnd as you know, from people who are climate change denialists and antivaxxers, simply saying that 'you do not have evidence' for something does not disprove it.  It's just something you say to fit a situation to your point of view on a quasi rational sounding way.\u201d  \nThis is a bad argument, and a pretty blatant effort to sidestep the fact that they do not, in fact, have any evidence.  If they DID have evidence, they could simply present it.  But instead, they dismiss their lack of evidence and imply that you are somehow at fault for expecting evidence.  If your position is that you struggle with faith because there is no evidence, that is a completely valid position, and their rebuttal has done absolutely nothing to challenge it.    \nTheir arguments also rely on semantic distinctions that I think are very dubious.    \nFor example, they draw a distinction between moral issues (slavery) and the traditions and rituals of the Church (celibacy), saying that the pope can make changes to disciplines but not to moral issues.  This is theoretically a fair distinction, except that these lines are often heavily blurred in the actual presentation of Catholic doctrine.    \nAnd to me, even if we accept that distinction between moral truth and discipline, that's actually a CHALLENGE of the Catholic church, not a defense of it.  Because it begs the question \u2013 why should anyone be beholden to these traditions and rituals, or to the Pope's guidance in general, if these teachings can change and are separate from God's actual moral truth?    \nSimilarly, look at their argument for the historical context of Christianity as a basis for morality.  They say that altruism is not a natural human behavior.  That's (probably) true.  However, some measure of altruism and empathy is a functional necessity for the development of societies and civilizations.  \nAs living beings, we have a biological imperative to protects ourselves and our families.  This is essentially a natural behavior.  By default, we don't necessarily have the same biological imperative to protect those outside our families.    \nBut at a certain point in the development of humanity, we started moving toward the idea of society.  By working together outside of our family units, we are able to pool resources and achieve greater stability for everyone under the umbrella.  But in order for that to work, we need to agree on some common ground in terms of acceptable behaviors \u2013 it is not natural, but it is a functional necessity.  And from there, laws and ethics develop naturally as societal contracts to maintain the bond and prevent collapse.    \nAnd the more we work together and pool resources, the more opportunities there are to expand the scope of our 'protective' instincts beyond our families.  Empathy has more room to develop because there is less strife.  That happens with or without religion.    \nAnd here's the thing \u2013 even if you argue that the functional presence of the Church expedited that process (an argument which seems to ignore the dark ages and the inquisition, incidentally), that still doesn't make any progress toward proving that GOD was necessary to arrive at these morals.  I could just as easily argue that the early religions invented God to justify their growing senses of moral empathy in a world dominated by mythology, and then got caught up in their own delusions.    \nI've rambled a lot more than I meant to here.  But I want to illustrate that to me, the arguments presented by the Christian in your screenshot are entirely unconvincing, dubiously semantic, and often blatantly misleading.    \nThis all ties into my larger point.  Your stated view is that because Christians have an answer to everything, their belief system must therefore be extremely clever.  \nBut actually, all that really proves is that people have been desperately clinging to this ideology.  \nYou see the same thing with hardcore doomsday sayers and hardcore conspiracy theorists \u2013 including, ironically, the antivaxxers and climate change deniers cited in the screenshot.  These people all cling to their beliefs, and they all make a wide variety of arguments to support their positions.  Oftentimes, you'll see a direct correlation between the absurdity of the belief and the commitment of the believer, because the sunken cost fallacy starts to creep in.  And so you see flat earthers run tests which accidentally prove that the Earth is not flat, and then immediately find some reason to discredit the results of their own test.    \nIt's not genius.  It's just commitment.  You and I could put our heads together and invent a complex deity if we really dedicated ourselves to it.    \nSo, with this, I think I've challenged a few facets of your stated views.    \nTl;dr summary:  \nYou don't have to try to argue with these people.  \nIf you do, you don't have to worry about whether you are successful in convincing them of anything.  \nIf you do worry about that, be fair to yourself, and pay equal consideration to whether they are successful in convincing you of anything.  \nIf you feel that they have successfully convinced you of anything, consider holding their point to higher scrutiny and research.  Are you sure it is convincing?  \nAnd, finally \u2013 I don't mean to discredit the value of faith.  If you do find it, I'm happy for you.  But in the meantime, don't feel like you need to have answers to everything.  No one really does, and if they claim to, they've probably made some of them up.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw0fue4",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nI should consider such debates as lose-lose because neither side convinced the other to fold and join their side.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw00fq9"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw0fxi3",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/FaceInJuice ([8\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/FaceInJuice)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw0fue4"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw0ds7r",
                "author": "Ill-Swimmer-4490",
                "body": "ok well lets take what your brother said  \n\n\nchristians habitually have performed many massacres against civilians in history, such as the sacks of jerusalem and constantinople, the northern and albigensian crusades, the destruction of the aztec and incan civilizations, the vicious reprisals against civilians during the european religious wars, i could go on\n\nchristians created the largest intercontinental slave trade in history, and sometimes even justified this with their faith.  catholics and protestants, if this distinction matters (it very much does not)\n\nthe weak and poor have no rights under christian doctrine.  christian doctrine has the weak and poor being the favored by god, and calling on christians to take care of the weak and poor.  but that doesn't mean they have \"rights\", its not the \"right\" of a poor person to be taken care of by a christian.  its an act of benevolent charity, that a christian can and will refuse if they don't want to do it for some reason.  and they will then argue that this was justified because of either the wickedness of the poor person (they're just drug addicts, they're criminals, they're lazy, they're of an undesirable social group) or will just say \"oh well i'm a sinner i'm not perfect\", and go along with their lives.   \n\n\naltruism of course predates christianity, there was the grain dole in rome and ancient china had many almost modern social programs designed for the urban poor.  hinduism and judaism, both religions that predate christianity, have just as extensive texts for dealing with the poor and caring for them.  indeed, pagan religions (which includes hinduism) either existed in such radically different socieities that there was no need for welfare or alms as there was no poor (for example, see plains native american societies) or had the exact same theological justifications for charity that christianity had.    \n\n\nwestern civilization is not the root of compassion for the poor or \"modern medicine\" at all.  ALL civilization is the root of it.  ALL civilization contributed to modern knowledge.  not just that from europe.    \n\n\nis christian charity not a commandment given by god?  how is that not the exact same thing then as your brother describes buddhist charity?  \n\n\natheism isn't a moral system.  moral systems come from social systems.  our social system comes from christianity, but is surviving christianity's downfall.  atheists continue to be just as moral as anybody else.    \n\n\nyou can derive goodness from wherever you believe it comes from.  a christian says that goodness comes from god.  a muslim says it comes from god, but a god that hates christians.  hindus say it comes from their gods.  \"goodness\" depends on what is defined as \"good\".  it is partially individually determined but is mostly socially determined.  yes, you can find \"goodness\" outside of god.  it does ultimately come from what you as an individual determines to be good or bad.  that might be disturbing to your brother.  but that's the reality.  that's the ultimate reality for christians as well; in their religion, god tells us what is right and wrong, but gives us the choice in determining which is which - he gives us free will.  therefore, what is determinable as good is up to our individual will to determine.    \n\n\nhe says \"relativism is bad\", but he himself uses history to equivocate around the marriage of priests.  relativism isn't bad, its an obvious kind of logic.  what he thinks is bad is the relativism that undermines his religion.  \"ignoring the social and historical context\" is relativism, that's the dictionary definition of using that kind of logic.   \n\n\nnot once does he ever give any positive evidence for god, in fact; all he's doing is relativising, is equivocating on various things.  because that's all we can do.  nobody believes in miracles anymore, nobody takes it for granted that there must be a god up there.  \"god is dead, and we have killed him\".  genuine belief in god can't exist anymore.  not even just for you.  also for your brother.  its a fake kind of belief.  more a promotion of a cultural identity for himself than any kind of genuine fear of a god.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw287c5",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">he says \"relativism is bad\", but he himself uses history to equivocate around the marriage of priests. relativism isn't bad, its an obvious kind of logic. what he thinks is bad is the relativism that undermines his religion. \"ignoring the social and historical context\" is relativism, that's the dictionary definition of using that kind of logic.\n\n!delta\n\nIt may be impossible to win, but calling out the relativism on the Catholic side is a start with regards to undermining the religion.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw0ds7r"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw28957",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Ill-Swimmer-4490 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Ill-Swimmer-4490)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw287c5"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15purrs",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 26,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw0esg9",
                "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                "body": "It\u2019s like the people you\u2019re debating forgot half their Bible was written by the Jews. \n\nAnd you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 with these people because they aren\u2019t arguing from logical position. Any example you give, they\u2019re just going to turn around and say things that are so far in the past that there are no rebuttals. \n\nThere are, however, a few things to note:\n\nThe Crusades.\nThe inquisition.\nThe Troubles.\nThe 100 Years War.\nAnd many others were all wars in which Christians attacked and killed other religions, sometimes other Christians, just because of being a different religion. \n\nThe Ten Commandments are Jewish, so that \u2018message of kindness\u2019 does predate Christianity.\n\nJesus hates capitalism. He used his miracles to feed people for free and the only time he got angry was at the moneylenders.\n\nAnd the big one:\nIf Christianity was about doing the most good, then why don\u2019t all the churches sell everything they can to help everyone? Why aren\u2019t all of them selling everything of value? Or, why are some churches buying huge unnecessary things (new pews, huge crucifixes) when that money could be spent helping people. \n\nAnd as for \u2018altruism\u2019. You can go over [this meta analysis](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2013596117#) and see that altruism could be genetic. \n\nAnd you can always bring up the amount of \u2018good Christian\u2019s\u2019 that have done bad things in the name of Christianity.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15purrs"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw28smh",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">And you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 with these people because they aren\u2019t arguing from logical position. Any example you give, they\u2019re just going to turn around and say things that are so far in the past that there are no rebuttals. \n\n!delta\n\nIt was wrong for me to write that Christianity has a rebuttal for everything. Instead, Christianity has a way to dodge everything.\n\n>And you can always bring up the amount of \u2018good Christian\u2019s\u2019 that have done bad things in the name of Christianity.\n\nFor example, with this one, they can dodge accountability by bringing up reasons why their atrocities were necessary.",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw0esg9"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw28vcs",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Mammoth-Phone6630 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Mammoth-Phone6630)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw28smh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzggd4",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nPeople have moral values without Christianity and most things people appreciate nowadays are not inherent to Christianity, for example the bible allows slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh2ui",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why does it matter if Christianity has a rebuttal for something? You can criticise the bible and Christianity based on what it says and the actions done in its name (context depending).\n\nBecause losing a debate due to their rebuttals makes me look stupid. Also, if you follow the links to their arguments, even the atrocities done in its name don't count because those fall under \"false prophets\". \n\nIt's like the Bible was written with this possibility in mind to entrap us.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzggd4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzh8ep",
                    "author": "tipoima",
                    "body": "Christianity *was* fabricated, but not by geniuses.  \nYou're fighting against over two thousand years worth of apologetics, where all the weakest arguments have been pruned away.   \nHowever, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhurp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">However, as expected of something that isn't actually true, those arguments are often plainly wrong, be it due to logical fallacies, appeals to unknown, obtuse philosophy you probably don't know you don't subscribe to, no-true-scotsmanning, e.t.c.\n\nThis is exactly what they do. The problem is that \"I don't know\" is not an acceptable answer to them ([see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvhr81y/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)), whereas they already have something up their sleeve to entrap me. \n\nAs you mentioned, with 2000 years of experience creating answers, I even if I am able to point out something wrong or intellectually dishonest, they'll still have an answer for that, forcing me to spend yet more time and effort to come up with an answer. And I am not intelligent enough to create an answer for everything they throw at me, so I'm trapped.\n\nIt's an uphill battle, and one that can easily be lost. Until we can come up with a rebuttal they can't defeat, there will always be a risk that secular society and LGBT rights might be defeated.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzh8ep"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhdab",
                    "author": "Watchyobackistan",
                    "body": "Not really, most of their \"rebuttals\" are stuff like \"god doesn't give us all the answers\" and \"Don't worry jesus loves you\" Non-answers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhezx",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "But why should you give a shit? If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. After all, if somebody were sufficiently dumb or insane, it would be impossible to convince them of the truth, no matter how clear and apparent the truth were; therefore, whether or not a thing is widely believed and people are readily convinced of its truth is not a guide to truth. When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong. \n\nMoreover, it isn't that Christianity is super well designed or anything. It's just that people who have strongly held convictions are not available to be convinced by facts and logic. That's just how people are: they do not actually change their minds that much.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzih4p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">But why should you give a shit?\n\nBecause I don't want my stances to look stupid. I was once likened to an anti-vaxxer for not being able to provide evidence to back my lack of faith.\n\n> If you have conviction in your own beliefs, it shouldn't matter whether or not you can convince others using your super debater skillz or not. \n\nConviction in your own beliefs doesn't make one right. Besides, their side also has a firm conviction in their beliefs.\n\n>When there was only one person on the earth who believed in heliocentrism they were still right, and the geocentrists were still wrong. The geocentrists had answers for every single objection, and they won every single debate, yet, they were still wrong.\n\nScience doesn't care about number of believers, what matters is the evidence. And in the case of heliocentrism, it was proven right by overwhelming evidence. I wish I had overwhelming evidence to back my lack of faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhezx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhg91",
                    "author": "Mr-Bitter",
                    "body": "Send your brother my way. I know of a way to convince him that it was Satan that wrote the Bible and can kill every single one of his arguments. I would thoroughly enjoy a civilized religious debate.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhig9",
                    "author": "ApocalypseYay",
                    "body": ">CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.\n\nThis makes zero sense. Rebuttals require logic and facts, and there are only apologia and special pleasing fallacy described herein. \n\nLet's start from the basic - where is the evidence for chris, the alleged son of god, and somehow also god, that killed himself to please himself? There is zero historical evidence for this event, before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles, or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj8qx",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">where is the evidence for chris,\n\n[Most historians accept that Jesus Christ existed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus). The rest of the biblical story isn't accepted by historians.\n\n>before we even get to the easily debunked claims of miracles,\n\n[I miserably failed at convincing someone that I don't believe in miracles](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). How would you convince him?\n\n> or the plainly immoral laws being promulgated as divine commandments.\n\nHow would you convince them that their side is immoral? They have methods up their sleeve to dismiss the malice conducted in the name of Christianity, and justify the anti-LGBT commandments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhig9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzhlry",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.   \n\nA good way to illustrate this, is whether they would accept comparable claims with comparable evidence from other religions. So if they claim that Christianity is true because it says so in the bible, ask whether you should also accept Islam because it says so in the Quran.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjexi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important concept you have to remember is the burden of proof. It\u2019s not up to you to prove the Christianity ISNT TRUE, it\u2019s up to them to prove that it IS TRUE. So if they can\u2019t prove their own religion you need to accept it, you don\u2019t have to worry about disproving their beliefs.\n\nBut that's the problem - they consider themselves as proving it is true. For example, one guy who told me of miracles he received - [and I lacked a sufficient rebuttal to convince him he's wrong](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzhlry"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi1gp",
                    "author": "Adam__B",
                    "body": "You don\u2019t have to defend not believing in something that is invisible, utterly silent, immeasurable, illogical, unscientific, undetectable and untestable. The burden is on them to prove a positive, not you a negative.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi24f",
                    "author": "OrangeBlancmange",
                    "body": "Why do you think you are losing? They obviously haven\u2019t convinced you in these arguments and just falling back to faith (which is all they really have) doesn\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 anything in any meaningful way. You won\u2019t be able to argue them out of their faith so you can\u2019t \u2018win\u2019 either. Ultimately it\u2019s not an argument in the philosophical sense - they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzk4ge",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> they aren\u2019t engaging in good faith and simply will not change their minds regardless of what you say.\n\nBad faith arguments are like doping in sports - they make it easier for them to win. You just need to be a good enough debater to win despite the disadvantage.\n\n>Why do you think you are losing? \n\nBecause I failed to be that \"good enough debater\". Any argument I can throw at them is  utterly crushed and thrown back at me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzi8a8",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "How did you lose that debate?\n\nSlavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\n[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:\\~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/01/a-harvard-exhibit-on-slavery-and-christianity/#:~:text=In%20the%20modern%20era%2C%20Christianity,often%20used%20to%20justify%20slavery).\n\nYes there were abolitionists, but if the same text can be used to both justify and condemn an action how is that text a good moral guide?\n\nThe bible explicitly allows the owning of humans as property. So either god is not unchanging or he changed his mind.  \n\n1 Peter 2:18, Saint Peter writes \"Slaves, be subject to your masters with all reverence, not only to those who are good and equitable but also to those who are perverse.\"\n\nYes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkhnt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Slavery - Christians used the bible to promote the slave trade\n\nI've miserably failed when using the \"what about slavery argument\" - it's in the link following \"It all started 3 years ago\". Sure, I could point out the pro-slavery parts, but they'll have a reason why that bit is irrelevant or misinterpreted. It's exhausting, finding every argument to throw at them, and having each one of those utterly crushed with more rebuttals thrown your way.\n\n>Yes they have prepared apologetics, it just means you need to do more research. Remember they have no evidence for their claims beyond personal gut feelings and a collection of contradictory, fictional and historic works.\r  \n\r\n\nI tried pointing out to someone that I don't believe in his \"miracle\". [My attempt failed miserably](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvai6qm/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzi8a8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzikz2",
                    "author": "Augnelli",
                    "body": "What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nYou don't need to debate every detail, just enough to invalidate the core; the truth on which they base their faith.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlcvy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What is the rebuttal for the Ark? What did the carnivores eat? How did the Kangaroos and Koalas make it up from Australia? What about fresh water fish? How much space was designated for JUST the elephants food?\n\nThat's the problem - even since the medieval era, most Christians disavowed biblical literalism, because biblical literalism is easier to poke holes into. Instead, they've come up with apologia, and now, with over 2000 years of apologia to defend against, it's become an unwinnable fight.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzikz2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzirf5",
                    "author": "ch0cko",
                    "body": "No. I am a frequent debater on subs like r/DebateReligion and r/DebateAnAtheist and everything you've said here is just... no. The vast majority of arguments for theism or counterarguments against arguments against theism, generally lead to special pleading or other fallacies.\n\nHere's one post I recently made: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary\\_claims\\_need\\_extraordinary\\_evidence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15pjew5/extraordinary_claims_need_extraordinary_evidence/) which then links to another one of my posts that goes more in-depth: [https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if\\_religious\\_beliefs\\_were\\_subject\\_to\\_consistent/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/15ey939/if_religious_beliefs_were_subject_to_consistent/)\n\nA lot of what Christianity said is very similar to other religions and old mythologies. It has a generic reward-punishment system/carrot and stick system, that is, a hell and heaven. On top of that, all of the claims in Christianity hold no good evidence with most being anecdotal. Most arguments for Christianity are not Christian-specific and more so just theism in general. Even then, those thesitic arguments lead to either, 1. fallacies, or 2. only making theism \"more likely,\" but even then, these arguments have counters.\n\nThey were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other religions and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't wide spread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: [https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/](https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzr1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">They were not geniuses. A little clever, but they essentially copied other beliefs and mythologies and is a cookie-cutter religion. Christianity isn't widespread just because of how \"logical\" and \"sound\" it is; indoctrination or generationally passing the idea down is a big part of it. There are also contradictions in the Bible which can be found at this website: https://www.lyingforjesus.org/Bible-Contradictions/\n\nI wasn't implying that Christianity was \"logical\" and \"sound\". I was implying it was successful because it has so many tricks up its sleeve. It may be full of lies, but for every one I point out, I'll get one or more rebuttals thrown my way.\n\nThink of it as being like in the middle of a dense minefield. Whoever laid the minefield might not have a \"logical\" and \"sound\" reason for it, but any step you could take will blow up in your face.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzirf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj07m",
                    "author": "xper0072",
                    "body": "Just because someone has an answer for everything doesn't mean that the answer is a good answer.  Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmc3l",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Your inability to properly debate the topic does not mean that the other side is correct in any way.\n\nI wasn't saying the other side was correct. My point is that they are impossible to defeat and are good at ensnaring their critics.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj07m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzj0m8",
                    "author": "razvanght",
                    "body": "In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. Christians generally agree that that person used the same method (feeling based) to reach an opposite conclusion (Zeus, not God, is real). In my discussions at least, this argument works in that it gives people pause. Of course, it does not change their belief immediately because they have been holding it for some time but I feel like it adds a seed of doubt.\n\nDo you know the official Christian response against this line of argument?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmy3i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In my experience, Christian s believe that God is real because they feel He is real. Then you can ask them whether a person of a different religion can also use the same method (I feel Zeus is real because I feel Him) to conclude that a different god is real. \n\nHow can I get them to accept the argument that \"oh I don't feel God is real, so don't force me to go to church\"? Because that argument always failed me in the past. Also, on a tangent, how are you able to \"feel\" Zeus?\n\n>adds a seed of doubt.\n\nPlanting seeds of doubt is a great political strategy. For example, in Australia, we have an upcoming referendum on constitutional indigenous recognition - and because the No side is so good at planting seeds of doubt, the Yes side is losing despite having academia and the arts sector on its side. \n\nBut back to the point, I tried planting seeds of doubt and failed miserably. The Christians I've had to defend my opinions from don't merely consider themselves as \"feelings based\", they consider their views as backed by literature (the Bible).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzj0m8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzjc23",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Box3199",
                    "body": "I dropped my Catholicism at 21 after learning basic logic at University. In year 6 whilst at a Catholic school, we were given a Catholic Catechism - literally the manual for being a good Catholic. Most of the book is written in question-and-answer format. This is indoctrination 101. The first 3 questions are, and I quote:\n\n>1. Question: Who made the world?  \n   Answer: God made the world.  \n>  \n>2. Q. Who is God?  \n>  \n>  A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth and of all things and the Supreme Lord of all.  \n>  \n>3. Q. How do we know there is a God?  \n>  \n>  A. We know that there is a God by the things that He made.\n\nRight there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.\n\nI looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.\n\nBefore you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvznrln",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Right there; in the first 3 question-and-answers is a Circular Argument. The entire basis of the Catechism is premised on a Circular Argument. If nothing else, the entire point of Catholicism is to justify the original statement that God exists.  \n>  \n>I looked through the whole of the Catechism highlighting anything I still believed. I highlighted a single sentence in the preface about doing unto others etc... NOTHING else.  \n>  \n>Before you have a go at me for not knowing what a circular argument until I was 21 - I went to Catholic schools for all of high school and it is in their best interests NOT to teach that and it was the 80s. That's my excuse and I sticking to it.\n\nIn my experience, pointing out the circular argument leads to one of 2 outcomes:\n\n1. Getting more apologia that I am unable to defeat\n2. The \"*Do you have a better explanation?*\" rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzjc23"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzktxv",
                    "author": "Simbabz",
                    "body": "The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp1ei",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The most important story of the bible is Jesus ressurecction,  the gospels contradict each other in the telling of the story, hardly designed by geniuses.\n\nNot sure what Protestants say, but Catholicism claims that slight differences with the same overall story prove it's written by real people observing the same things. We can accuse them of using a dodgy argument, but it still wouldn't undermine their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzktxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzkuyc",
                    "author": "vote4bort",
                    "body": "I think you're just trying way too hard in these debates and starting from the wrong point. You're coming at them like religion is something that can be proved through debate when it fundamentally can't. \nThe religious rebuttal for every point will always be essentially the same. That is they'll say \"well I believe this I so\". And you can't argue with that because its not a statement that can be argued against.\n\nWhat can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzp2i6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.\n\nThe problem is when they think they have evidence and you think they don't. [Here's an example with a Protestant](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jv9g3kt/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), and we can't agree on anything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzkuyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzl8ri",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "You seem to be a poor debater.  You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.  \n\nAll children are born atheists.  Coincidentally, they just happen to usually believe in the god(s) their parents/community believes it. \n\nAnd personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.  \n\nYou also need to educate yourself about the null hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqf91",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You seem to be a poor debater. You are accepting a lot of arguments as true when they aren't.\r\n\nI don't accept their arguments as true. I accept them as difficult to defeat.\n\n>And personally, if there is a god with the power ascribed to it by the bible, I would refuse to worship it.\n\nI wouldn't want to worship such a God either. [I've told a Protestant that if I were to accept that he indeed received a miracle, it would still prove that the Christian god is unjust](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvkkegk/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). But that argument still failed to sway him.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzl8ri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzlzcb",
                    "author": "-paperbrain-",
                    "body": "What you seem to be saying is just that you are not able, with the mere power of logic, to get Christians to abandon their belief.\n\nI hate to break it to you, but this is not a particular quality of Christianity. Anything people are dug in on will face this hill. Not only will you encounter it with every religion, but you won't argue many people out of their political doctrine, flat earth belief, or whether they side with Ross or Rachel on friends. People have rebuttals for everything about many totally conflicting positions. It's part of having strong beliefs and giving it some thought. And religions in particular have had a long time and tons of resources to give it thought.\n\nThat doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nHowever, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs5r5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That doesn't mean there's no room for criticism. Just that your expectation about change is ridiculously optimistic.\n\nSometimes, I'm challenged to debate when I'm not looking for one (see my first link in the post details). I wasn't expecting to change anyone's views, just successfully defend my decision, and I failed even that.\n\n>However, regardless of how your personal debates are going, people are leaving Christianity in droves, partly because they don't find those rebuttals to critique to be logically, morally or emotionally satisfying. The fastest growing religious affiliation is \"none\".\n\n[Christianity is still growing overall](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth). Even if it's not growing in the Western World, this shrinkage is negated by growth outside the Western World.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzlzcb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzmu4k",
                    "author": "wrongfulness",
                    "body": "What a waste of time",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzniyg",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.\n\nIf you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztyn7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This isn't hard. Christianity literally endorses slavery.  \n>  \n>If you believe slavery is wrong then that's the only argument you need.\n\nI tried using such an argument. [It backfired](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzniyg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzoket",
                    "author": "ElPwnero",
                    "body": "I like the one Muslims use:\\\nThe word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvglo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I like the one Muslims use:\r  \n>  \n>The word of allah is perfect and if you find inconsistencies, then it\u2019s your human brain that\u2019s incapable of understanding the true meaning.\n\nI mean, they're basically insulting your intelligence. But isn't that a great bad faith tactic, dodging accountability by accusing your opponent of being too dumb to understand? I can't imagine myself faring any better debating a Muslim than debating a Christian.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzoket"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzppfh",
                    "author": "indigoneutrino",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is I've had the opposite experience. Plenty of experiences online and in person where they can barely rebut *anything* to the point that I've had a minister apologise she can't answer my questions satisfactorily. I've seen no-one rebut or even explain why the crucifixion makes sense without legitimising blood sacrifice. It just constantly defaults to \"Jesus paid for our sins,\" without explaining why the death of an innocent third party was accepted as a valid payment within a supposedly just system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzqu5n",
                    "author": "Pichkuchu",
                    "body": ">It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted\n\nJust because you got outwitted doesn't mean the other side was right, they were, in fact, blatantly wrong. Christianity is just as guilty of atrocities as any religion. Keep in mind that Christianity is 2000 years old and they enslaved people until 1860 and they had to be \"convinced\" by war to give it up. They genocided native populations in America and colonized Asia and Africa. There was inquisition. They burned people for heresy, including scientists. They weren't different from other big religions or even pagans. The modern view of the world and humanity encompasses non Christian populations too and one could argue that it's in fact the result of secularism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr1ue",
                    "author": "StrangeAssonance",
                    "body": "I\u2019m curious why you think one has to prove God exists? \n\nAlso, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nJesus repeatedly talks about how blind and deaf people are to God and his word.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkhs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Also, when Jesus was on earth the Jews kept asking for a sign from Him. They were blind to what he was doing with His ministry. The world is blind, so when you try to have these arguments that you feel you can\u2019t win, I think you aren\u2019t ever going to win them. I can show you God through my words and deeds but if you are blind to that, you won\u2019t see what\u2019s there to see.\n\nThis is why I see my inability to believe as a disability comparable to being unable to read.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzr1ue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzr2rx",
                    "author": "mo_ff",
                    "body": "You can have faith that your monthly bills will be paid whilst you have no money or means to do so OR you can actually have the money. One will work. The other will leave you with no utilities. Full stop.\n\nIn a debate with a Christian you would encounter, \"Oh, but have you no faith a brother in Christ would not help you?\" And then a large quantity of scriptural examples would be brought forth from whatever version of the bible they are most familiar with.\n\nAs others have stated, the deck is stacked. If you can approach the conversation with your family in a civil manor, stop going to church. Believe what makes you happy and mentally healthy so long as it doesn't hurt others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrn0v",
                    "author": "HansPGruber",
                    "body": "You need to read some Thomas Paine my friend.  A renegade if the atomic age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzrwx0",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "Couple things.\n\nThe first thing is that burden of proof is with the person making a claim - Christians in this case.\n\nThe second thing is - you don't need to refute the religion itself, because you can't.\n\nUsually, if you bring up things like pastors being molesters, or the crusades, or witch burnings, Christians will commit a No True Scotsman fallacy. \"These pastors aren't *real* Christians.\" You don't need to refute that argument because it is in itself wrong - but if you want, you can always go the path of saying that everyone in the church is, in the end, appointed by God.\n\nThe easiest way to reject Christianity is to instead reject God, though. You don't even need to prove that he's bad or anything - you need to use your own morality to reject the idea that a god like depicted in Christianity can be a god you want to believe in.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzs63u",
                    "author": "hdhddf",
                    "body": "you don't need to convince them, they're arguing from a position of ignorance and indoctrination, you can't argue with that because their arguments aren't built on logic or sound reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzt6nt",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "Let's do it by example. What did they have a rebuttal for that you couldn't respond to?\n\nMy suspicion is that they really didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztpz1",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "Just say: \u201chey I also met a Muslim, a Mormon, a Jew and a Hindu. They all make the exact same arguments as you do about why their religion is the correct one and they all say they have the one true religion. So why should I join yours over their\u2019s\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvztt3e",
                    "author": "Potential_Cod_8473",
                    "body": "They might win a debate but the world still is a shitty place full of diseases, suffering, birth defeacts. \n\nIt only prove how dishonest someone is to defend a claim it was created my omnipotent and omniscient being. \n\nChristianity was falsified many times\nAdam and Eve? Fairytale\nGreat Flood? Fairytale\nBabel's tower? Fairytale\nExocus? Fairytale \nRessurection? Really improbable\n\nThe fact that the scripture has to be interpreted in the face of new evidence like why would omnipotent God need 4 bilions years to create highly imperfect and miserable beings or why universe is 93 bilion light years wide and we are limited by a speed of light is a powerful evidence against revelation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzugyn",
                    "author": "the_internet_clown",
                    "body": "Just because someone says something in response doesn\u2019t make it a good rebuttal",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuj4l",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": "Christianity doesn\u2019t have a rebuttal against Judaism - they\u2019ve tried and tried to kill us and never succeeded",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw075ml",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Is that really a good argument though? By that logic, Islam doesn't have a rebuttal against Christianity either (or vice versa).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzuj4l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzullx",
                    "author": "Scott_The_Protogen",
                    "body": "Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? Unless they're being a jerk about it like in the last part. I always just have that whole live and let live thing (Even if some fanatics might not be that way either). I know you say some of these people come to you with the debates, but I feel like just giving a solid \"I don't want to talk about it\" or \"My views aren't going to change\" might work, even if they do continue to badger you regarding it, It doesn't have to be a winning-losing game.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07dt4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why \"debate\" someone's faith anyways? \n\nIn the first link, I was challenged to a debate out of the blue when I requested not to go to church anymore. He wanted me to read his spiel and change my views, or give a counter-argument strong enough to defend my views.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzullx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzur3s",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzurg6",
                    "author": "Key-Extension1458",
                    "body": "2000 years ago there was a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem that took animal sacrifice from the people. This was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\". Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere. \n\nHence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.\n\nNow everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07io1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">2000 years ago the Temple in Jerusalem took animal sacrifice from the people. It was fulfilling the Mosaic Covenant, and sustained Israel called \"Judea\" at the time. Like Jesus said it would happen, the temple was thrown down to the last stone and the sacrificial rite was \"nailed to the cross\" in the words of Paul the Apostle. This leaves us without redemption under the law, and everyone is guilty of sin everywhere.  \n>  \n>Hence the figure of Christ intervenes, and made the ultimate sacrifice, putting death and guilt and hell itself into the fire. Now we have grace and mercy, and redemption by faith. It seems to work, since 2000 years of Christian history represented the general improvement of life everywhere. At the same time, the movement was hijacked by earthly forces resulting in \"churchianty\" and roman catholicism. All \"debates\" are just scholastic noise from that time, arguing in circles about nothing relevant. It is what it is, the temple of jerusalem was destroyed 2000 years ago and the levitical rites were nailed to the Cross.  \n>  \n>Now everything is a free gift, the more we cast off the old man and put on the new. Strong enough faith loses fear of everything and moves mountains, it is divine power given to mankind. God loves the children of this world and Israel in dispersion, which means everyone.\n\nIs this supposed to be a promotion of Protestantism?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzurg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzusf6",
                    "author": "danmilligan",
                    "body": "One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive. Because of this, you can't really say \"Christians are like this\" or \"Christians do that\", because this will apply to SOME Christians, but certainly not all. For a good example, the majority of American Christians are extremely unique from a global perspective, being far more individualistic, and reading the Bible in a slavishly literal fashion, among other things. So if you say \"Christians are anti-LGBTQ\", there are millions and millions of other Christians ready to counter that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u6h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">One thing I'm sensing is that you're thinking of Christianity as a monolith, and while that was once true, it hasn't been for a long, long time. So many types of Christianity exist that there will be Christians on opposite sides of nearly any given issue. The true non-negotiables of the religion are extremely minimal, and highly interpretive.\n\nI'm well aware of the splits within Christianity. What I mention in my post detail is that I have tried and miserably failed to defend my lack of faith from both Catholics and Protestants. I understand that they'd have different ways of thinking regarding lack of faith, but at the end of the day, both defeated me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzusf6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzuv92",
                    "author": "GreasyPorkGoodness",
                    "body": "You need to dismantle the church hierarchy and not the \u201cexistence of god\u201d. \n\nIt\u2019s not that you don\u2019t believe in god, you don\u2019t believe in Christianities following of god. Their church is corrupt, opulent, child molesters, hypocritical, child marriage, judgmental, in Christ like etcetera. \n\nGod very well might exist, if he does he certainly won\u2019t approve of christianity.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzv7py",
                    "author": "CutiePopIceberg",
                    "body": "Christianity is Middle Eastern mythology. Christians hate when you remind them of this.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvaah",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "\"I don't believe in that bullshit\"\n\nDebate over.\n\nContrary to your brother's or pastor's wishes, you don't owe them any sort of debate or explanation. Live your life as you want to, not based on what they think you should do.  If that means, no religion then stop going to church. \n\nFuck em.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvipb",
                    "author": "CriticalThinkingAT",
                    "body": "The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09z3v",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The thing is, there are a mountain of atheist rebuttals as well. Like literally there are so many atheist channels out there to rebutting every Christian argument that it's just a matter of searching and looking for them. Lol. You'll be fine.\n\nCounterpoint: Only a few of these are useful. Most channels appear to be useful only against Protestant pastors who rely on charisma. Catholicism is much harder to debate against as they have 2000 years of church tradition, intellectuals and apologia on their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvipb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvw3c",
                    "author": "OpenByTheCure",
                    "body": "I don't want to be harsh, but I just think you're not very good at debating",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b11j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I am bad at debating (and most other things). Maybe that's why I always get challenged to debates, because I will lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzvw3c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzvzk2",
                    "author": "Dr_Keyser_Soze",
                    "body": "You need to listen to David C. Smalley. Take in a few podcasts and you won\u2019t be disappointed.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzx8zv",
                    "author": "Wintermute815",
                    "body": "It\u2019s really not. It depends on circular logic and faith, both of which are critical flaws.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxa1z",
                    "author": "j3rdog",
                    "body": "Stop trying to debate facts by point counter point.   Learn street epistemology. There\u2019s good YouTube channels and subreddits on it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxmej",
                    "author": "Unable-Food7531",
                    "body": "You're:\n\n1. Bad at debating in general\n\n2. An unskilled rhetorician \n\n3. Uneducated on the topic you're debating.\n\nThose Three things together mean than any attempt to draw generally-appliable conclusions from your debating losses is doomed to produce bs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05k0t",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "How can I get all 3 skills when I'm up against people who have so much more knowledge than me? I hate it when I give others a reason to criticise me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jvzxmej"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzxv11",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "Christians don't have arguments, just elaborate evasions of criticism.\n\nIn order to be religious, or believe in a supernatural god, to some extent, one has to deny certain aspects of science, and also have to deny the foundations of reason and logic.   \n\n\nThere are major undemonstrated claims that come with theism:\n\n-a spiritual, divine, or otherwise supernatural realm exists \n\n-there are nonphysical spiritual forces and entities \n -some kind of afterlife exists\n\n-at least humans have souls, which are the spiritual essence \"attached\" to a physical body\n\nEven if all these were demonstrated, we would still have no way of determining which deities were real.  These claims are also far from being demonstrated, likely, or even possible.   \n\nEven then, we have no way to link such deities to any religion that anyone worships.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzyqtq",
                    "author": "Electrical-Rabbit157",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not well designed. It\u2019s the worst designed religion in the world actually. The success of Christianity is based around keeping people from learning about other faiths. The moment that happens the VAST majority of them leave christianity for something else. Myself included. \n\nYou have to go at the fundamental hypocrisy of it. The average Christian rants and raves about the Ten Commandments and yet every single one of them break the first 2 commandments daily and most break 3 commandments every Sunday. The average priest breaks the first 4. Then there\u2019s the fact that the Bible is a corrupt text and Christianity as a whole was founded by Paul, a man who is not a prophet, not a disciple, not an apostle, just a random guy who comes out of nowhere and starts preaching that Jesus is God.\n\nThey worship a trinity which is paganism. There is no excuse for it. It\u2019s the same exact belief system as Hindus which are literally the original pagans that Abraham fought against. This trinity also includes a man. That man is considered a prophet but still. This breaks the first commandment. \n\nThey idolize said man and the cross he died on. They wear necklaces with it. They put big gold crosses at the front of their churches and big wooden ones on the outside of them. This breaks the second commandment \n\nThey go to church on Sunday and the vast majority of them believe this is the sabbath. Which directly breaks the fourth commandment.\n\nThe priesthood commits extortion and sometimes even rape in either the name of God or what they lead people to believe is a house of God. This breaks the third commandment \n\nThen you get to the Bible and it\u2019s non existent integrity. There are about 5 major sects of Christianity. Each one has about 40 versions of the Bible. And the average Christian may think this is normal, it\u2019s not. Jews have 1 version of the Torah. Muslims have 1 version of the Quran. Hell even the Hindus only have 1 version of most of their texts. The new testemant is more written by Paul, who is again, not a prophet, than any actual apostle. All of Paul\u2019s letters are included in the vast majority of bibles yet the book of Enoch, book of Jesus Christ, and lost gospel to Peter are considered \u201cuncanon\u201d by the church and have been removed for centuries. That is not a holy text. It may have been a couple thousand years ago but out of 200+ in circulation today, I\u2019d seriously doubt any can be considered uncorrupted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzz7x7",
                    "author": "malorane",
                    "body": "Isn't this other person either straight up lying or totally misinformed about the Christianity/Catholicism? Like I could be misremembering but I'm pretty sure there are passages that literally give you guidelines about how to treat your slaves and this dude said both have always been against slavery?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzg1h",
                    "author": "CantKeepMeOutYo",
                    "body": "You will never win against someone with faith. They will always always always have some other bullshit excusw up their sleeves. That's what makes religion so fucking dangerous: it uses logic when it works and then completely disregards it when logic doesn't work. Don't bother debating christians, they've accepted a parasite into their body that will defend its ability to feed off the host, even if it means killing the host, or YOU.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzk96",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\r  \n\r  \nIf you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics\n\nIgnoring the second proposition for a second I want to propose 2 more reasonable secular arguments;\n\n1. This is true of all religions because their axioms and methods for diving truth are different. They believe, want to believe, will tie all phenomena in with their argument, will ignore Occam's Razor to do so. \n2. If Christianity is better than (some) other religions at doing this it may be because it is a highly evolved system of memes. A meme is the idea equivalent to a gene. Religions are memetic in nature - they are ideologies, ideas about how the world works. Memes compete for space and survival much like genes do. And every time one of its memes is threatened it is forced to either drop that meme and adapt or bolster it to do the same. Look at the iterations of historical Christianity. Where are the puritans today? Even Protestantism evolved out of Catholicism - many will claim that they are barely the same religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jvzzkww",
                    "author": "DangForgotUserName",
                    "body": "The salvation of man is dependent on the suffering of Jesus Christ.  His 'blood sacrifice magic' supposedly forgives original sin - doctrine that we know though biology is utterly wrong.  (A couple of garden nudists were guilty of rebellious fruit munching, so everyone deserves death or eternal torment?) This makes the theological story around Jesus one where he is scapegoat of a nonexistent forebear.  This should undermine the value of Jesus as well as the foundational basis for belief in God.\n\n \n\nFurther, the idea that the only way to forgive is through ritualized punishment?  That is petty and immoral.   No forgiveness without bloodshed or death.  Horrible, ignorant and outdated ideas.\n\n\nThe idea of a messiah, one who will deliver us from the tribulations of the present, is an ancient idea that distracts us from the hard work that must be done to build a better world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0052z",
                    "author": "Emotional_platypuss",
                    "body": "The problem here is both sides trying to impose beliefs on others. What you believe or don't believe is your problem. You don't need to explain why you don't follow a religion, specially to religious people. Is like them telling you why their religion is so good. Break out of that circle and move on",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00l9j",
                    "author": "notjuan_f_m",
                    "body": "This Is the problem with everything lately. \"I am right, you are wrong, and I will continue to tell you until you accept that i am right\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0052z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw00vuq",
                    "author": "JackedLilJill",
                    "body": "If anything, just from your text and title, the fact that Christians explain themselves fully in the face of debate, should be the reason to change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw013nj",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "For your first debate with your brother, he was just straight up wrong on so much. Christianity is not and does not serve as the basis for morality in the western world or the world as a whole. \n\nMost of the non-western world like in Asia is not heavily Christian and wasn\u2019t for most of their history. They of course are doing just fine. Christian morals have not been consistent nor are they the basis for a basic society. \n\nAdditionally, you don\u2019t need Christianity to explain altruism as it already has a natural explanation. It\u2019s called kin selection and essentially means that it is beneficial to help out family since they carry your genes. This means more of your genes will get passed on. This is likely how it evolved in humans and then developed into what we consider today. Animals do this. Altruism isn\u2019t human alone. \n\nThen you have slavery which the Bible openly says is fine. Leviticus 25:44-46",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw01pm9",
                    "author": "-Strawdog-",
                    "body": "Taking a quick look at one or two of these examples, you have a very noticeable habit of accepting a lot of the other person's premises and arguments without pushing back on them at all. As an example, your brother mentions multiple times that altruistic behavior is the direct result of the Christian faith, an argument that is absolutely ridiculous for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which that our closest genetic relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) exhibit all kinds of altruistic behaviors as part of their highly social lifestyles (and they also don't sacrifice eachother, something he seems weirdly hung up on).\n\nTo be honest, it doesn't look like the people you're debating have good arguments or are good at expressing them, it seems that you are just very new to debate, particularly on this topic. If debating religious folks is something you want to do (you are incredibly unlikely to change their minds even with very good arguments), you can find plenty of solid resources online that break down and refute just about any apologetics you are likely to encounter.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw02avd",
                    "author": "lamabaronvonawesome",
                    "body": "I have found the opposite to be true. I would recommend reading some books on logic and debate. Having an answer doesn't make it a good answer. I had a debate teacher that used to day \"the definition of a reason is anything I put forth as a reason.\" This essentially means you SAY anything, that doesn't mean it will hold up under scrutiny. You mentioned miracles that a person had given you examples of in their own life. Debate in essence is about definitions, how we define things. Get them to give you the definition of a miracle. I personally would define that as any event that is ONLY explainable by divine intervention. See if their miracles hold up to that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw035en",
                    "author": "kountze",
                    "body": "The Church did have some good effects on political and cultural development in Europe - for example the separation of powers came from the Church being a strong counter force to the government for so long, church limited the government in ways that led to values of separation of powers and limited government, unlike China which was much more state dominated and still is today. Protestantism represented not only a change in religion but also a change in how humans think logically - so yeah a lot of good things can be tied to how Protestantism changed how people think. \n\nThat being said, the above certainly is a far cry from saying that Protestantism values will work in every situation or that it can address all of today\u2019s modern problems. Protectionism ideally is something that should be open to interpretation, which modern Christianity has moved away from that. \n\nIn terms of science the Church does not have credible arguments - that\u2019s the main problem. If you think they do, you really haven\u2019t encountered anyone who actually knows the science and microbiology. \n\nAlso, do not confuse correlation and causation. Certain positive developments in society may correlate, but that correlation does not prove causation. \n\n\nThe issue with",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw03fxs",
                    "author": "Jaderholt439",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m debating Christianity, I like to go straight to the main topic- the Resurrection.\n\nMost people I know and love are Christians; I don\u2019t have a problem w/ their religion. I love these people. But what I don\u2019t like are apologists. Every single one that I\u2019ve ever seen is dishonest. Especially when it comes to the Resurrection.\n\nIt\u2019s not hard to believe that a guy named Yeshua, who had a religious following, was crucified. I can even believe he was put in his own tomb, although most were put in a mass grave, it\u2019s wasn\u2019t unheard of. The stone being put to block the tomb and guards sound like they were plot holes being fixed  in Matthew, but for arguments sake, I\u2019ll agree to that too.\n\nJesus wasn\u2019t in the tomb when they went to him 3 days later. What is the most likely explanation? Is it, \u201che must\u2019ve overcome death and ascended, bc he\u2019s God\u201d? I think a Guy Ritchie style heist is way more plausible. \u2018They forgot which cave\u2019 is more plausible. Literally anything is more plausible. If they are being honest, they have to say, \u201cI believe it on faith\u201d. Yet, apologists will not say this, therefore they are dishonest, therefore they don\u2019t have an answer for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04f2l",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "LOL on the first link. Christianity didn't opposed slavery, and doesn't have a monopoly on being a good person. It actually was the ideological fundation of american slavery.\n\nHypocrates wasn't christian, gandi neither, and personal freedom, democracy and equality of genders aren't christian values.\n\nThe golden rule (\"don't do to other what you dont want done to yourself\") and the silver rule (\"do to others what you want to recieve from them\" (bdsm, for example)) are not creation of christianity. \n\nSome christian are propagandiced all their life into the worldview of \"all good comes from christ\", which is clearly a big lie. Is kinda justified for them to sell that lie, tho.\n\nAlso, that motto has a counter-part: \"No bad comes from christ\" which is my only explanation to how incredible bigoted people justify their behavior without ever thinking \"are we the badies?\". Anita \"pie-face\" Bryant comes to mind, who, in her own words \"loved homosexuals\".",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw04j73",
                    "author": "Jade_Skie",
                    "body": "TJ Kirk (aka The Amazing Atheist) on YouTube once mentioned \"unfalsifiable hypothesis.\" In other words, Christians spout the argument that miracles, what is said in the Bible, Satan, and God all exist and are as the answer to everything because immediate evidence to the contrary can normally not be produced by their opponent, thus no argument against them can be made. So in their minds, they are right. That is, of course, not how the world/universe actually works.\n\nTo quote Carl Sagan: \"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05bz4",
                    "author": "JuliusErrrrrring",
                    "body": "Remember the following truths: most people who claim they are Christians are good people; most people who are good people and claim they are Christian are good because of their ignorance of the Bible, not because of the Bible. The Bible is an awful immoral book and the religion is completely silly. It is pro slavery, pro genocide, pro forced abortion and pro incest. If you are debating anyone who isn't in favor of those things, they may be actually non believers too, they are just too ignorant of their religion to know any better.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nIt is completely silly and does not hold up to debate. Just some quick obvious random thoughts off the top of my head: They suck at math - claim to have one god yet believe in a holy trinity as well as an evil god. Many Christians claim to be against abortion, yet the Bible actually gives an abortion recipe, god murdered pregnant women in his Noah's Arc genocide, and Jesus forced abortions on Jezebel. Many Christians are anti-trans and anti gay - yet Eve transitioned from a male rib and now they worship a dress wearing dude with two fathers who identifies as bread and wine. Cain and Abel were the original motherfuckers. The whole bible was written by people who never met Jesus and there is zero historical proof that there even was a man named Jesus pretending to be god. It's just a gigantic hoax that's been accepted due to peer pressure because life is easier and you can make more money and get laid easier if you simply play along with this silly marketing scheme.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw05l8j",
                    "author": "Loose-Technology7787",
                    "body": "Christianity is designed that way. Christians are programmed in a way via church and such where they hold their belief to a much higher standard than any facts or logic despite a lack of evidence. On of christianity's main taglines is to just have faith in god even though hes done nothing to show you hes there.\n\nDebating a religious person on religion is an unwinnable debate. You cant argue against someones opinion when the only points they will accept are those that align with said opinion. For example, many christians say good and evil only exist because god decides whats good and bad. I might say that life is meaningless, therefore our thoughts and feelings are all that exist making them all that matters. Meaning we get to choose whats moral; however the christian would then just say life isnt meaningless because god gives meaning to life. This will go on for any length of time.\n\nThe only reason atheists win those official televised debates is because theres a mediator keeping nonsense out of it. They keep the religious side from using unreasonable and illogical arguments, which leads to them losing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06l99",
                    "author": "BuzzyShizzle",
                    "body": "That's funny because, I have yet to hear them lose an argument/debate on the atheist experience yet.  \n\nIf you haven't heard of it, there is a call-in radio show called \"the atheist experience\" and the entire show is welcoming any religious to call in and challenge them.  If you want your view changed, that show will do a much better job than anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw06orq",
                    "author": "Sad_Confidence8941",
                    "body": "I agree, Christianity is very well designed. The smartest people alive for many centuries spent their lives defending Christianity (Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, etc). They have been philosophically attacked for years and years and are still here",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0753r",
                    "author": "nomad5926",
                    "body": "Homie out here saying the altruism isn't a natural thing without Christianity..... \ud83e\udd23 Bro be saying Meerkats are all Christians? Or Naked Mole Rats?\n\nI will never understand why people have to force religion upon others. But essentially an easy way out is to ask them to provide solid proof that God existed. Logically you cannot not prove a belief. (Like others have said before me). Typically the ones making the claim \"god exists\" have the burden of proof. \n\nAlso in my experience you're not going to convince anyone to stop believing. It's the same reason kids believe in Santa it gives them something. For most people, religion is a source of comfort. It's why, from what I see, older folks are more religious. (Cause you know.... Closer to death... Heaven seems nicer).\n\nIf you just want them to stop harassing you, you can just say that your relationship with God is personal and need not be on disability for others. (You don't have to say the bit that the relationship is non-existent).",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07atx",
                    "author": "Moraulf232",
                    "body": "Christianity has an answer for any criticism but the answers are silly and unconvincing just like the religion.\n\nJust ask yourself \u201chas this answer explained why I should believe these assertions with no evidence or has it just made more assertions with no evidence?\u201d and \u201ccould this answer be used to justify the existence of a Flying Spaghetti Monster or literally any other deity?\u201d or \u201cis there any evidence that the person I am talking to can imagine that would cause them to change their mind?\u201d etc.\n\nThe philosophical arguments (apologetics) religions use are just fancy noise. There\u2019s nothing there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw07u2w",
                    "author": "lpuckeri",
                    "body": "Theres many reasons why christianity is absolutely absurd, at a childlike and comical level imo. I have equal belief in it than i do Santa. The apologetics for christianity are just excuses for something as rediculous as believing in flying to heaven on a winged horse.\n\nLets remember, we are arguing about. A cosmic jewish god zombie who is his own father and was born a virgin birth to a women impregnated by a holy ghost. \n\nThere is zero evidence for this that is not heresay. Not a single item or record or peice of evidence contemporary to jesus exists. To confirm this laughably absurd story all we have is stories that contradict each other, written in the wrong language, written decades to centuries after the fact, much of which we know was straight up forged and copied from surrounding greek myths and people.\n\nGetting lost in abologetics is exacty meant to make you forget you are proving an absurd thing eith zero evidence, and get caught up in the weeds.\n\n\nReasons. \n\n1. Supernatural events in the bible are empirically impossible to prove. Christians may use awful arguments like minimal facts etc, but these are all comically bad and fallacious. Abuductive reasoning is all we have access to, and that can never demonstrate supernatural events... This alone is enough, as it is logicalltly impossible to demonstrate christianity through our resources.\n\n2. The bible is self contradictory, the trinity and more is exceedingly illogical. By this i mean it literslly violates the laws of logic... and is isnanely stupid.\n\n3. The bible is obvious myth taken from surrounding cultures.\n\n4. There are no decent biblical scholars who think Moses wrote the old testament. Moses clearly never existed and exodus never happened. This is extremely confirmed... there is extreme evidence the base of both judeaism and christianity is 100% made up.\n\n5. People that claim supernatural events or whatever... 1. Does not prove god, or their god... it proves they had something special happen and nothing more. 2. These are nothing more than claims. 3. People claim this shit for every religion, thousands... if you apply this standard as evidence for one... you must for thousands of gods. 4. Once you understand psychology you realize how the brain works snd how easy it is for people to misnterpret things visually and auditory.\n\n6. Religions are not one off inventions. They are all representations and copyings of popular myths at the time. This can be seen in thousands of religions. Just as it is in christianity... the devil and hell doesnt become a thing until Greek influence, things like rising and dying saviours were popular greek myths too at the time of the bible etc. In fact the bible was wirtten in greek, not aramaic, the language Jesis and his follower would have spoken. You see babylonian myths copied into the parts of the bible, when they were written there...you see the bibles hell and devil and apocalyptic influences copying greek myth during the hellenistic period. Religions are copies of surrounding myth and cultures.\n\n7. Apologists often use arguments to prove god that are diestic. Things like the ontological srgument, teleological argument... aside from these being bad arguments,  they only prove A God... not christianity.  Even if the Kalam is true... the odds of christianity bring true is still zero... it gets you no closer.\n\n8. The bible wasnt written by geniuses. It was written by copying and adapting popular myths, cultures, and laws at the time. From copying ancient semetic religions and near eastern traditions 4000 tears ago, to adapting greek myths 2000 years ago. It also was written of centuries, adapted, edited, revised, forged, faked, reinterpreted thousands of times by hundeds of people. This idea some geniuses wrote this thing like you see it now is childishly ignorant of scholarship and history.\n\n9. There are actually about 94 gospels. 90 of which christians will admit are 100% bullshit mythological stories... yet they somehow think these are the special true 4, because the church leaders centuries ago simply decided so. \n\n10. These excuses and arguments for christianity are no better and no different than the ones Jews will use, or muslims, or Sikhs. You just live in a place around christians most likely. \n\nIts interesting because i have never heard a christian argument to me than is not childishly rediculous imo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08ays",
                    "author": "Inevitable_Spare_777",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t have a factual, logical debate with a person who\u2019s worldview doesn\u2019t subscribe to facts and logic",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08i8h",
                    "author": "drzowie",
                    "body": "There is no direct way to argue a Christian out of Christianity, because it is a faith-based system of beliefs.  But you *can* demand respect for your own beliefs.\n\nA couple of years ago, I wrote about just how incompatible Christian beliefs are with the scientific worldview.  That line of argument is (like any other argument) unlikely to convince a fervent believer -- but may help you to understand that there are real weaknesses in the edifice of Christian thought.  \n\nBelow is [copypasta from an early CMV post I made](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/7zy9wp/cmv_you_can_accept_todays_scientific_theory/durqqmi/):",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw08xbe",
                    "author": "DouglerK",
                    "body": "I mean if they didn't the religion would probably be dead by now.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09c2d",
                    "author": "joshp23",
                    "body": "> If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniouses\n\nAll they have at their disposal are unfalsifiable claims. You can't prove that the invisible dragon in my garage doesn't exist either. The rest is a con act to attribute personal experience to the dragon. \n\nBut unfalsifiability and con tactics aside, wouldn't a genius be able to construct an effective argument *and* compile an internally consistent document at the same time? You have to do mental gymnastics to apologize for the ignorance and inconsistencies in the Bible.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw09wvx",
                    "author": "Crookwell",
                    "body": "OR you just aren't a very good critic?\nBecause I can rebuke shitty religious claims all day",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0a4wk",
                    "author": "redstar15551",
                    "body": "Maybe you should give up then? You're not gonna \"Gotcha\" Christianity so leave them alone. Your lack of faith and overabundance of cynicism does not bug anyone the slightest. Don't trap yourself because you view this as an unwinnable battle against some dogmatic close minded religion, when that in and of itself is close minded. There's a modern pushback against religion, Christianity specifically, that has been pushed hard; but Christianity has and will continue to endue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0b260",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": "When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they made up on the fly). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry uce on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\nThat's pretty much what religion is. Your mistake is in trying to make any sense of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw25sdi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">When my brothers were young, they played a game that was very much like Calvinball (if you've never read the comic Calvin and Hobbes, this is a game they make up on the fly, so it never has the same rules). So it was all stuff like \"now the floor is lava so you burn up!\" \"Oh yeah? I throw 60 million tons of dry ice on it and that cools it off\", \"well that was too much and now you're frozen solid!\" Etc. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, you can't get anywhere trying to defend yourself from a religion which is designed to dodge accountability and make opponents lose. It's not designed for a debate, it's designed to be inescapable.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0b260"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bbov",
                    "author": "Collective82",
                    "body": "If you are having such a hard time debating it, shouldn\u2019t you consider it\u2019s right and maybe you should look at converting?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw263jo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I have. The problem is no matter how hard I try, I have zero spirituality and a complete inability to be sincerely connected with any religion. I see this as a disability comparable to being unable to because it's such a drag on my life.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bbov"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0bhc0",
                    "author": "Fluffy_Candle6800",
                    "body": "I'll give you a quote from a book I read - \"God is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent. However, bad things still happen. This means God cannot stop the bad things - he is not omnipotent, God does not know the things are happening - he is not omniscient, or he allows the bad things to happen - he is not benevolent.\"",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26dbi",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I've accepted the last one. How can I possibly believe in a benevolent god, when he gives miracles to some and neglects genuine victims, or when the religion he designed has endless excuses and loopholes to dodge all accountability?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0bhc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0cszb",
                    "author": "ItsAll42",
                    "body": "I do feel as though you too quickly concede many points that are not accurate or honest, but stated with such confidence they are difficult to rebutt just as confidently without sufficient background knowledge. In fact, some of these claims are just straight up racist, such as claiming altruism is not only a strictly christian virtue, but that many values such as caring for the sick and needy or having basic human decency are strictly Western practices and values.\n\n This is wildly inaccurate to claim, knowledge of history can easily debunk such ludicrous statments, especially considering much of the Western ideology is more focused on individualism where confucianism is more focused on the community as a whole. Buddhism stresses that all beings have inherent worth and challenges the strictly heiarchichal values of confucianism, yet still plenty of emphasis is placed on how to better the community as a whole and being kind for the sake of altruism and kindness without any expectation of personal rewards. You do not have to be a historian  or theologian to debunk so much of what this person is claiming, especially in regard to other Abrahamic religions which are incredibly similar to the teachings of Christianity, you know, because they share a common historical and biblical root. While modern interpretations of Abrahamic faiths run the gamut, they are more alike than many of their subscribers would like to admit. \n\nIn fact, I'd argue that Christianity and most of its branches contain more self-serving motives than many religious beliefs, promising prosperity and wealth in heaven as a reward for good behavior. As an agnostic person I do not need a reward for my good behavior. \n\nAs you tried to point out, when this person claims pagans did not care for the sick or other absurd claims, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate such a ridiculous assumption. \n\nThis person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw26yyz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This person comes across as making many intellectually dishonest arguments, and you more or less concede or gloss many of these points without pushback.\n\nThat's because I didn't study history at a tertiary level. See how I'm a frequent visitor to r/AskHistorians - because I'm not smart or knowledgeable about history. Are you suggesting that to defeat Christianity, I'll need a university degree in history?",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0cszb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0dbxm",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "Most, if not all of the Western values people like to claim are \u201cJudeo-Christian\u201d in origin simply aren\u2019t. For one \u201cJudeo-Christian values\u201d aren\u2019t a thing as these groups have different values, however let\u2019s consider a few things we value in the west. \n\n#Democracy\n\nIn the Bible, democracy is never extolled or even articulated. Instead, there are endless stories of theocratic, authoritarian rule and the divine right of kings. Power is always concentrated; it\u2019s never distributed. In classical Greece, however, Athenians established what is generally recognized as the world\u2019s first democracy around 500 BCE. This predates Christianity and arose with no Jewish influence.\n\n#Common Humanity/ Equality\n\nThis is simply not biblical. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from holding authority over a man, told to be silent in church, and instructed to be obedient and submissive to their husbands. The same word used for submissive in Colossians also is used to describe how slaves should be to their masters. Women can be killed if they\u2019re suspected of having premarital sex; the tenth commandment forbids coveting property, which includes women in the same sentence as houses and oxen; if a woman was raped, she was forced to marry her rapist if the offender paid her father, and on and on it goes.\n\nNon-Israelites or gentiles were forced into slavery and treated as property. This is seen in Leviticus and all over the Hebrew Bible. Slavery was condoned and justified for thousands of years using the Bible. \n\n#10 Commandments\n\nA common argument is that these \u201claws\u201d are where we derive most of our morals and values in the west. This is rather silly. \n\nFor starters, a lot of the commandments are about idolatry, however other Rules like \u201cthou shall not kill\u201d predate Christianity and Judaism by hundreds of years. Literally any and all functional societies require this rule to be in place. And all over the world you see non-Christian  nations follow similar \u201claws\u201d. This is because they are beneficial for building a society. \n\n#Other religions\n\nOther religions have much stronger moral codes that Christanity. Jainism believes so much in the value of life that they won\u2019t even talk at night because they could accidentally harm an insect. Buddhists have a deep personal desire to self improve while also improving the lives of those around them. Same could be said for taoists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw27njn",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "That's the problem though. You assume that Christianity is pro-democracy and pro-equality when history has shown us that they'd gladly throw these concepts under the bus if it were in the way of their religion.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0dbxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0f9fa",
                    "author": "Circular360Angles90",
                    "body": "People often conflate these two completely separate ideas. God/Higher Power - whatever you want to call it, with - Religion. \n\nReligion, in its limited ability tries to use the concept of God in an attempt to sway your reasoning capabilities towards their doctrine. God, however is completely separate from Religion.\n\nReligion just seems to have a Monopoly on the word. People feel as though believing in a God or Gods means they should adhere to some way of \u201cknowing\u201d their God. - which is all that a religion really does. But rest assured that it is someone elses ideas you are digesting. Theres nothing wrong with consulting people whom you believe to be wise or have more experience, but if you start feeling like they have some sort of answer that you cant quite grasp, then your talking to the wrong people. \n\nThis is not something that anyone can \u201cshow\u201d you or \u201cdebate\u201d you about. \n\nGod isnt in a book. God isnt an idea you learn from the pulpit. God isnt reason nor logic. God isnt bad. God isnt good. \n\nYou are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nThink for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw2llv2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are engaging in a debate where their is nothing to debate, thus you always be \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\n>Think for yourself, walk your own path. You\u2019ll fall flat on your face initially, perhaps for many years and, if you can muster up strength to get up on your own and not ask anybody why you fell and why it hurts so bad - you\u2019ll stop feeling \u201coutwitted.\u201d\n\nIsn't this the problem though? Most people can earn external respect being just who they are. In contrast, I have to prove my respectability, and prove why I have valid views, and I always lose.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw0f9fa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0fl5d",
                    "author": "CIABrainBugs",
                    "body": "If God was real, his actions would prevent me from giving him any respect. I don't care if he's real.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0g6mu",
                    "author": "Nghtmare-Moon",
                    "body": "Read Carl Sagan\u2019s demon haunted world. It\u2019s the best essay to counter all religious arguments",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0gw4r",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": "It's not that there's a rebuttle for everything. There's just a different lens to look through. \n\nSay an atheist has blue shades on and sees everything as blue. Christian sees everything as red. However, the one commonality between the Athiest and the Christian is the human construct..thereby despite being in different mindsets, they both acknowledge phenomena as they unfold in the world\n\nNo matter how much blue you speak regarding world phenomena, the Christian will respond to *each* phenomenon with a red response.  \n\n\nThis phenomenon, you look at through a blue lens and say: \"The Christian has an excuse for everything, no matter how blue, there's always gonna be some red to speak on from their side.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0h3pm",
                    "author": "Realistic-Cat4116",
                    "body": "The only rebuttal you need is: \"Prove it.\"  Keep repeating that over and over again.  They can't, you win, end of argument.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3j1",
                    "author": "Okami_The_Agressor_0",
                    "body": "Debating things that are designed to explain all with a basis in non-falsifiable statements is impossible. Religions are all memetic viruses that are meant to superimpose a false sense of the world on their followers, there are other belief systems that do the same that don't involve god but a well designed memetic virus can't be successful with out being impervious to logic or ways to side step rational thinking. That being said many modern political beliefs are structured similarly and operate in a similar fashion to religions. \n\nReligion imparts a base line culture and morality to people that allows for a more respectful and peaceful society. Part of what make that possible is ideological sanitation of a populace. Diversity of ways of life sparks conflict and religion solves that a good portion of the time. You could potentially see how many recent events have been the result of diverse culture and belief systems, so any derivation of heterogenization of society would logically be rejected by such belief systems with understandable cause.\n\nI believe people should be able to do what ever they please but when there is no respect in society people seek control from government to maintain the peace. So the easiest way for a country to stay free is to remain an ethno/ideological-state, or very slow and controlled change. When accounting these things you must satisfy for the lowest common denominator which will inevitable reject things on the basis of tribal instinct.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0k3sk",
                    "author": "ApeMummy",
                    "body": "You\u2019re outwitted because you lack wit not because christianity is special.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0kns0",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "1st is a citation needed. Second was a semantic argument. Third is a no true scotsman fallacy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0m923",
                    "author": "Ecoronel1989",
                    "body": "I think the issue here is your brother does a few things to confuse you.\n1. Switching between defending spirituality and Christianity.\n2. Berating you with words so it's hard for you to rebuttal everything that is said (an overwhelming tactic).\n3. Throws out unprovable claims that are opinions as facts.\n\nFor #1, there's a big difference between spirituality and Christianity.  Christianity asserts it is the one true religion, all others are wrong and lead to a wrong lifestyle.  Spirituality is a general idea about believing in something outside oneself.  To Christians, spirituality is paganism (unless it's Christianity itself) and therefore wrong and cannot be accepted or celebrated.  So your brother can't simply pick and choose to say spirituality is good for the health and then switch to say Islam is not a good religion as these are contradictory statements.\n\nBut this issue is linked to #2, he berates arguments with a ton of words and makes multiple \"points\" at once.  This is a similar tactic to what Donald Trump has used during his time as a politician.  Simply overload the other side with a word soup, throwing out multiple arguments that are each wrong, but takes effort to debate each of them.  By the time you gather your thoughts about the first wrong statement, he's moved on to the next 3, it's overwhelming.\n\nWhich leads to the last point, that is throwing out unprovable claims in the midst of his word soup. Claims such as there would be no morality without religion are unprovable for modern science since we have had religion in all cultures for over 2000 years, so it's hard to test this \"fact\". Another one that comes to mind is saying there's objective morality in the Bible, which you argued is not because of the Bible.  Another counterargument is that the interpretation to the Bibles teachings changes across generations (i.e. slavery allowed for priests) and is therefore not objective, but his claim is unprovable in general as you can only offer up counter examples he can claim we're people not following the \"truth\".\n\nOverall, I think you're doing better than you think at debating this issue.  The larger issue is what others have pointed out, that you don't have to win this argument, simply live by what you believe is true like they do.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw0sjyl",
                    "author": "TimeFliesFaster",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t have a good rebuttal as to why Jesus is the prophesied messiah of a religion that believes in a single unitary god.  Especially when Jesus didn\u2019t have the right ancestors and failed to meet the applicable prophesies (ie dead all coming back to life, temple being restored for all time, diaspora returning, war coming to permanent end, and entire world embracing scripture in messiah\u2019s lifetime)",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw1cnr9",
                    "author": "David_Warden",
                    "body": "You are trying to prove a negative which is a waste of time.\n\nThey are the ones making the improbable claims so the burden of proof lies with them. \n\nIf they continue to pester you, ask them to prove it.\n\nI think you will find that it boils down to belief in the highly improbable that is not adequately supported by either evidence or reasoning.",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15purrs",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Reposted because it was taken down for Fresh Topic Friday\n\nI have a history of losing debates to defend my lack of faith:\n\n* It all started 3 years ago, when I requested to no longer go to church - and in response, my brother challenged me to a debate, which I lost because I was outwitted - [see here](https://imgur.com/a/jVrxqdd).\n* Earlier this year, I tried to explain my lack of faith to my local parish priest, and I lost again because I was outwitted - [see here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/14oerk4/cmv_some_people_are_spiritually_dead/).\n* Over the past few days, I've been trying to defend my support for LGBTs and lack of faith from a Protestant. Once again, I realised I was losing because I got outwitted, so I got desperate and quipped \"*is there any red line that would make you hold Christianity to account*\" - and what do you know, I still lost because [there are Christian rebuttals for that too](https://www.reddit.com/r/KnowingBetter/comments/15jo5wy/comment/jvmad6j/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\nTherefore, I must concede that Christianity is a well-designed religion because there is always a rebuttal at its disposal that will leave its critics trapped. For the TVTropers among you here, Christianity has a [Xanatos Gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) in its favour. No wonder Christianity has lasted 2000 years and is still growing.\n\nSociety may have appeared to have made gains against Christianity - but such gains are being reversed (both [inside](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-09/why-young-gym-bros-are-becoming-catholic-online-christianity/102457884) and [outside](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6wFW9nPwmg) the Western world). No wonder we are seeing consequences like [declining acceptance of same-sex relations](https://news.gallup.com/poll/507230/fewer-say-sex-relations-morally-acceptable.aspx).\n\nAs for why I've been keeping notes of my debates, it's because I don't want to be constantly losing (and [I lose in non-religious debates too](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/xu1pad/question_how_to_deal_with_clashing/)). I keep notes so that I can analyse them in the hopes of improving my debating skills enough so that one day, I can finally win debates.\n\nSo to conclude:\n\n* If you believe that Christianity was fabricated by men, then these men were geniuses who made sure that the religion they designed has a rebuttal to dodge and entrap future critics\n* If you believe that Christianity was divinely inspired, then this God had the foresight to choose the right words to dodge and entrap future critics",
                    "date": "2023-08-13",
                    "score": 26,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Christianity has a rebuttal for everything - and that leaves critics like myself trapped.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15purrs/cmv_christianity_has_a_rebuttal_for_everything/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw3kj7g",
                    "author": "SaltiestRaccoon",
                    "body": "Sure. They have rebuttals. They're just not as good as you think they are. And they tend to be the same rebuttals over and over.\n\nI mean just to refute the ones you were hit with... In the first example, he paints the 'pagan' world monolithically while citing the worst examples from many different cultures, while kind of also ignoring that many of those things also apply to Christian nations. Pretty sure the weak and poor weren't running Medieval England, for instance. Likewise slaves were absolutely still a thing among Christians... the slaves just couldn't also be Christian. There were Christian Germanic warriors pillaging right along with the rest of them. Finally virtually any civilization that has kept slaves does in fact have laws about how they can be treated. It can certainly even be argued that serfdom is still just slavery but called something else to make it acceptable, as people can still be bought and sold, they just count as part of the land instead and likewise must work for their lord or face abuse or death. Sounds a lot like slavery to me.\n\nAltruism is in fact a part of human nature. It evolved because we are a social species and we are inclined to act for the good of our group, as our group is beneficial to our survival. There's a [great example](https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/11/04/Cavemen-took-care-of-physically-disabled/5137563000400/) of a cave man skeleton with some pretty crippling deformities, who could not have hunted for himself that lived to old age. That means his tribe or his family unit was caring for him despite the fact he was a burden. And this is humanity in the stone age, at our least civilized. The Gauls, as well routinely collected a portion of taxes to help pay for their disabled citizens (though in Rome, it was preached if not always practiced that disabled children should be put to death.)\n\nIn a lot of instances he just seems ignorant on history and expects you to go along with it. A lot of it is very gish-gallupy too. He says so many wrong things that there's no way to correct them all without getting so bogged down with corrections that you can never make a point of your own, or even refute all of his errors. Don't allow that. Insist on arguing one point at a time.\n\nReally I think it's gaps in your knowledge more than Christianity being particularly difficult to criticize. I find it quite easy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15purrs"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15rqk4o",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jw9wlqj",
                "author": "47ca05e6209a317a8fb3",
                "body": " > Firstly, cash is much more anonymous\n\nThis isn't exclusive to cash. There can be other payment systems that don't or can't track money. The problem is that governments don't *want* to allow anonymous transactions, and they do that as part of the cashless transition, and the solution isn't going back to paper money but advocating for privacy in general.\n\n > Secondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\n\nIs that really an issue? The process of payment with a card is arguably simpler than with cash, and keeping your money as cash in your home is already not really a viable option (or at least a very bad idea).\n\n > Thirdly, technology\n\nThis is the main reason we haven't gone cashless so far, but this is rapidly becoming irrelevant in the countries that are abolishing cash. Power (at least enough for the devices that handle transactions) is almost completely reliably available everywhere, internet access is going in that direction and there are solutions for it to not be strictly required continuously for day-to-day transactions.",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwad1fn",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "\u0394 I didn\u2019t consider that there may be platforms that cannot be used for surveillance.",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jw9wlqj"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwad6dk",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3 ([149\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/47ca05e6209a317a8fb3)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwad1fn"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw9vara",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "As someone who lives in near cashless society it's great.\n\n>tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked\n\nAlso known as tax evasion and criminal activity. Also where I live police has no access to my bank account. Neither does government.\n\nI actually worked years in banks and one thing I worked with is finding out frauds and money laundering (again criminal activity). Not once did I care what people did with their money unless it was criminal.\n\n>Secondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\n\nEveryone here uses credit cards. It's actually simpler than cash because you don't have to count anything or carry lot of cash around with you. Lose your card and just a phone call and your money is safe. Lose your wallet and you are down how ever much money was in it.\n\nAnd when it comes to other technologies like ebanking the disabled actually have more access to it. How do you think a blind person can figure out how much cash they have or how to pay bills? They use text-to-speech app on their phone and don't need to worry about someone stealing their cash.\n\nLiterally never have I faces a situation where someone wouldn't accept my credit card. Even our kids lemonade stands accept electronic payments.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwka4zd",
                    "author": "TigerBone",
                    "body": "Cards are simpler and more practical. But they cannot be the only option, simply because if they are, you have allowed Visa and Mastercard (other companies might exist) to dictate when you're allowed to spend money, and on what.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw9vara"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw9w5na",
                    "author": "lonelypeloton",
                    "body": "Norway here. This is already happening in my country, and it is the future for my country at least. \n\nI think for Norway, the reason you mentioned is exactly the reason why we need cashless society. Digitalization streamlines tax payments and clamps down on illegal transactions, evasion and avoidance. \n\nBusinesses that avoid digital payments cannot be trusted since the consumers cannot protect themselves in case of malpractices.\n\nThe part about third parties keeping log of our digital footprint is already happening in many spheres, and that\u2019s a privacy issue that we would demand the government to solve, but if they want to reveal that i went to a sex toy store and bought handcuffs, i frankly don\u2019t really give a rats ass.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw9xl66",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "While I can\u2019t forsee the government of Norway, becoming authoritarian in my lifetime, aren\u2019t you concerned about the possibility that a future ruler would have access to all this information about you? \nNot just this, but companies who have access to your transaction history will be able to use that to target their advertising.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw9w5na"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw9x9mg",
                    "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
                    "body": "Cash transactions have always been tracked. You may not keep careful accounting, but the stores you buy from certainly do. Forensic accounting exists for a reason. Unless this is a tiny transaction between friends, accountants are more than capable of building a very detailed picture of how you spend your money.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaao1o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "That\u2019s true, but forensic accounting requires more time and resources.\nWith cashless transactions, data can easily be collated and a profile of a person spending habits can be created and used for purposes outside of law-enforcement.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw9x9mg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jw9zffc",
                    "author": "No-Passenger-6205",
                    "body": "Having just been in a store whose internet service was down, I can see the need for a cash backup",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa7kv5",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/No-Passenger-6205 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20No-Passenger-6205&message=No-Passenger-6205%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/-/jw9zffc/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jw9zffc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa15ym",
                    "author": "IronSavage3",
                    "body": "97% of all money in the US is digital. We\u2019re already there.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa5w3y",
                    "author": "IlIllIllIIlIllIl",
                    "body": "And 30% of all money was \u201cprinted\u201d since the pandemic. The money wasn\u2019t real to begin with.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa15ym"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa5wls",
                    "author": "Cayowin",
                    "body": "We are a cashless society.\n\nThe absolute bulk of financial transactions are done electronically. Banks don't transfer money to eachother in trucks anymore. They use SWIFT and have done since the 70s. The stock exchange does not pass dollar bills to eachother. \n\nSo you are only referring to interpersonal exchanges and customer retail of which small denominations.\n\nYou can't buy a car, or anything over 10k in cash, at a legitimate store without declaration to IRS.\n\nMany sales are moving online\n\nSo you are talking about small brick and mortar retail stores. \n\nThe same ones that get robbed. No cash no problem. \nThe ones where workers steal from the till, no cash no problem. \nThe ones that have to arrange change - which costs money.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5pbmgz",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "I know people have paid cash for houses to get them cheaper.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa5wls"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa6ua8",
                    "author": "i-am-a-passenger",
                    "body": "> There is literally a of everything that your money has been spent on.\n\nNo there isn\u2019t. There is a log of everywhere you have spent money, not the items you purchased.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa7ku8",
                    "author": "Mander2019",
                    "body": "Cash has poop and cocaine on it and handling it for large periods of time can lead to illness.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaab2o",
                    "author": "sunnysam306",
                    "body": "The reason I\u2019m not \ud83d\udcaf on board with a cashless society is each time we use a digital form of payment, the bank takes a small portion of that until there\u2019s nothing left. That money just gets returned right to them in the long run. For example, let\u2019s say I pay someone $40 to cut my grass. Cash, the recipient gets that $40 in full. If there is a credit card used, the issuer takes whatever percent, say 1 for the sake of this comment, that $40 is now worth only $39.60. Over time that $40 becomes nothing because the banks are taking their little cut. \nNow convenience? That\u2019s a whole nother story. Nothing beats being able to tap my phone or watch to pay for stuff.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwajid5",
                    "author": "ass_pubes",
                    "body": "This is the argument that nobody is addressing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwaab2o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaclrx",
                    "author": "ConstantAmazement",
                    "body": "You have been presented with several very excellent counter- arguements that clearly should have been awarded deltas. \n\nYou are posting in  CMV. Please edit your original post with a clear explanation of what would change your view. Please be detailed in your reply. Thank you.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwadkb3",
                    "author": "dnL1337_",
                    "body": "only purpose of cash is using it to commit crimes, it literally has no other benefits. When it comes to 2nd and 3rd point - no one will be left behind - all changes are made gradually so no one will be hurt.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwdym22",
                    "author": "PermanentBanNoAppeal",
                    "body": ">only purpose of cash is using it to commit crimes, it literally has no other benefits.\n\nI disagree. \n\nIt can be used to reduce the use of credit/debit cards to potentially rigged readers.\n\nSometimes I'd rather use cash for purchasing beverages from vending machines.\n\nI feel better leaving a $5, $10, or $20 as a tip rather than writing it on the receipt.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwadkb3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwae5ou",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "I\u2019m confused - do you think your bank is keeping itemized receipts?",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwafgg5",
                    "author": "steelerfaninperu",
                    "body": "So I live in Peru, which was very much a cash-first society when I first moved here. Today, it's almost the complete opposite, so I'd like to share a few things that have improved in my life and why I'm all for the cashless movement. \n\nFor context, just about everyone now has a mobile app that works with every major bank. There are no transfer fees using these apps. You can scan someone's QR code to pay instantly or just type in their phone number and send them money instantly. The apps are so easy to use that even elderly and disabled individuals can use them easily.B\n\nSo obviously this is **more convenient**. There were many times where someone didn't have the exact change and you'd get stuck, either you had to buy something else or you'd just have to leave. Now I can pay everyone precisely, whether it's a cab ride or a trip to the corner store or my groceries for the week. \n\nThere's also a **huge cost savings** here. By skipping the Visa/Mastercard/Amex middleman, stores save money. That's helped to keep costs down despite inflation. \n\nAnd it's actually **more inclusive** for people than cash-based systems. Take rural Peru for example. If you live 1-2 hours away from a bank, then when/how do you get cash? Getting cash is literally a task, and now you're probably holding money for a while, which makes you vulnerable to crime or something as simple as a fire burning up your cash. \n\nPeople in rural Peru use these apps now too (you'd be surprised how far mobile phone and mobile internet penetration has gone in the last few years, even the poorest countries in Africa are using this system). Now they don't have to ride into town just to make payments. It's saving people time. \n\nOverall, going cashless delivers far more benefits than drawbacks in my experience and I am extremely happy with my system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5pct9j",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "Interesting examples.  I would give a Delta if I knew how.\n\nSadly I still worry about internet crashes and hacks with AI becoming prominent but I do love cutting out the middle and their transaction fees.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwafgg5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwahecr",
                    "author": "lavendercat4353",
                    "body": "Most of the things you fear about a truly cashless society are already here.\n\n1. The IRS can track cash if you at any point put it in a bank account. It's already hard to hide large sums of cash income indefinitely. While you're correct about tracking what we buy, many people still participate in loyalty programs that attach your purchases to a phone # or email address. Even if we went back in time and more of us used cash, we're being tracked in so many other ways that abstaining from digital transactions won't fix the core issue. Data rights and privacy are a far more wide-reaching issue.\n2. This is a genuine point but in 10-20 years the remaining portion of the population that is truly digitally incapable due to generational differences will leave us. The only ones that will remain are the ones that are willfully anti-tech. They are already subsidizing folks with cell phones, so the portion that will be left out for financial reasons will be incredibly small.\n3. This is actually your weakest point. When we consider a true breakdown of society, and EMP taking out all digital records or a destruction of our banking system, cash is unlikely to be worth jack shit anyways. Same with gold and silver for the average person IMO. Better load up on bullets, coffee, and a vegetable garden 'cause a piece of paper that already isn't backed by a gold standard isn't going to get you anything.\n\nI hate the idea of a cashless society, I hate the tracking, I hate the implications of government control, but c'mon man, you know it's already here. It's not about not going cashless, it's about fundamentally changing how our society relies on tech in general, and that's just not gonna happen until it all falls apart.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5pbdyj",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "This is why I hope WAY more casinos get hacked just to freak out how easy it now to get all your money.\n\nLike if an AI bot impersonated some wealthy person like in oil or banking we'd see how fast there would be more regulation on this.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwahecr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaiw9s",
                    "author": "IndyPoker979",
                    "body": "There is a 4th issue not explained in this outside of tracking. It is much easier to manipulate digitally than physically. I don't know if you are considering the ease of manipulation as well.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5pcb1a",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "Yes this is definitely going to be a bigger problem than people realize with the rise of AI.  I like cash because it can't be altered $20 is $20.  I do think getting rid of coins would be nice.  Just round shit up to the next dollar.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwaiw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaiwpp",
                    "author": "Future_Green_7222",
                    "body": "- I think electronic payments come to replace more of bank/credit/debit card transactions than cash payments. I've been in places where cards are the norm and in places where electronic payments are the norm. Bank cards are always troublesome. They either take a long time, they can steal the card info, etc\n- The times that I've been robbed has been cash. Also, I think banks make it kinda easy for ppl to steal money as long as you have data about that person. Ex: the security question is \"what's your mother's maiden name\". Anyone that looks up online can learn this. I feel much safer keeping my money behind my 6-digit phone password and encryption. (I also have a different password for locking apps.) Not to mention some credit cards don't need PIN, or the PIN is only 4-digit\n- About authoritarian regimes... let's say I know a few illegal immigrants in an authoritative country that is not friendly to foreigners who receive payment electronically, and they haven't gotten into trouble \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaj290",
                    "author": "Ethan-Wakefield",
                    "body": "For most people, it would probably be better to be cashless and have transactions monitored. There\u2019s a big reason why scammers want people to convert money into gift cards.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5pd7wm",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "The biggest abuser are corporations using digital loopholes to not pay taxes.  I don't care about petty scammers.\n\nI care about the wealthy class getting wealthy unethically.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwaj290"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwao0e8",
                    "author": "Huffers1010",
                    "body": "I think it's fine so long as some very binding rules are introduced on how the card system works. For a start it needs to be free, as free as cash is.\n\nIt's  happening by degrees in the UK.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaobc4",
                    "author": "Chicago_Synth_Nerd_",
                    "body": "There's evidence that suggests that cashless societies disproportionately harm people with less economic resources. I really, really dislike tech fetishism.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwarikv",
                    "author": "Vendevende",
                    "body": "Digital currency makes tracking one's own transactions easier, recovering lost moneys easier, and limits robberies.\n\nPlus printing is money is expensive.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9yzuie",
                    "author": "69scream69",
                    "body": "Phones can be robbed just as easy as physical cash",
                    "date": "2023-11-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwarikv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwb7lzn",
                    "author": "Imadevilsadvocater",
                    "body": "Honestly i agree with you but i do have one point that you missed. Its the reliance on other companies to do any monetary dealings with another person. If i have a dollar i give it to my daughter for allowance now she has a dollar the end. If i can only do it digitally and the government hasnt made a federal money app (nightmare to me) then i could be banned from money. My paypal account is banned as i type this and venmo wants more info from me to withdraw. So unless its super easy and always accessible as a right then its dangerous. Also people can do crime so i guess thats a bad thing (there i disagreed",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwb858a",
                    "author": "lets86",
                    "body": "Just imagine during the pandemic if they would not allow spending more then 1 mile from your house.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwb9fsq",
                    "author": "FM596",
                    "body": "**You forgot to add the most important concern of all (let them try to beat that):**  \nby going full digital in this era that most governments are easily turned to totalitarian regimes faster than you switch on the light, they will be able to freeze your account, or prevent your from spending money for \"reasons\" such as:\n\n* **you have exceeded your allowed carbon footprint**  \n(defined by the products you have bought so far - the sum of their carbon footprint rating, positive or negative)  \n\n* **your social credit score is low**  \n(society is divided to good citizens and bad citizens.  \nwhat you say and what you do will be fully tracked and analyzed (obviously massively, by algorithms or the dumb \"A.I\").    \nPlay along with your government and you'll be rewarded.   \nDisagree to the value system set by your government (which is actually set by powerful anonymous elites that pull the strings), disobey, or try to awake your co-patriots in your blog or \"social\" media, and your social credit score will go down and you'll be punished.  \n\n\nMore on social credit score (that comes soon where you live):  \n   \n[https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/565860-coming-soon-americas-own-social-credit-system/](https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/565860-coming-soon-americas-own-social-credit-system/)  \n[https://offensively-patriotic.com/2022/04/25/italy-social-credit-system/](https://offensively-patriotic.com/2022/04/25/italy-social-credit-system/)\n\n[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/dec/16/social-credits-digital-passports-and-other-coming-/](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/dec/16/social-credits-digital-passports-and-other-coming-/)",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcm36j",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwb9fsq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwbfo5j",
                    "author": "Fal9999oooo9",
                    "body": "In a cashless society drug prohibition will work as dealers will have a way harder time dealing drugs\nSo selling drugs would be much much harder",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwe8poi",
                    "author": "Sirisian",
                    "body": "I wonder if such a scenario wouldn't lead to more advocacy for legalization. Prohibition would create a lot more discussion and debate that could spread rapidly. Given current trends at least in the US it could bolster people to be more politically minded - at least for one or a few issues.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwbfo5j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwbwpbb",
                    "author": "DelayNoMorexxx",
                    "body": "all in all, you just dont want all your spending transaction access by anyone. so its not related to cashless society. its more like how we people can control the data. change the privaty law, not the technology.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcdu88",
                    "author": "RealSmartestguy",
                    "body": "I agree with your concerns. We are the most surveilled society ever. The East Germans didn't collect a fraction of what  the government collects on us now. \n\nMy biggest problem with no money is that the government can decide what you spend your money on or not allow you to spend money at all. Think that sounds crazy? Canada locked access to money for the truckers. I never thought I would see that happen but it happened and no one seemed to care. \n\nI have never heard of and don't really believe there are systems that don't track. Money would require tracking to verify transactions. Saying the information cannot be used is like turning off the camera on your phone. You push the button and the screen changes but it is not off. The correct command over the network can use your camera at any time.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsetpk",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": ">I never thought I would see that happen but it happened and no one seemed to care. \n\nBecause they deserved it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwcdu88"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcqnlc",
                    "author": "georgewastaken3",
                    "body": "We will never move to a cashless society because there are shops that will only accept cash, and there are children that receive pocket money. Children with cards would be a stomping ground for credit card scammers like the famous Nigerian Prince and the notorious MichaelSoft tech support. \n\nThat\u2019s not to say that your POV isn\u2019t flawed, so I\u2019ll point out a couple things:\n\n1) Cash is anonymous:\n\nWhilst cash itself is anonymous, there\u2019s no guarantee that your purchase wasn\u2019t tracked regardless. If you buy something particularly troublesome, like twelve gallons of bleach, or a shovel, rope and a plane ticket, I have to say that I\u2019d be inclined to draw a quick sketch of you when you leave and take down a couple details like an accent, hair colour, eye colour and the such. \n\nAlso consider that capitalism (that is, the economic values of capitalism) hinges on goods and services being available via trade. Depending on what you trade, your transactions could also be untraceable anyway, such as if you bought a car with an expensive painting, or if you bought a pack of cigarettes doing yard work for the owner of the cigarettes.\n\n2) Digital Exclusion:\n\nDigital exclusion is a rather large concern for most, but in my opinion and experience, I\u2019ve only really noticed older relatives have trouble with their banking online. The act of spending money is pretty simple, usually you just have to tap your card and we\u2019re in an age now where basically everyone knows how a chip n pin card machine works. I get where you\u2019re coming from where the issue is it feels like you\u2019re spending money from a wallet that you can\u2019t count your money in, but my banking app works all the way down to simply tapping the app logo and then looking at my screen. Face ID does the rest and I can then have a quick glance at my money and regret my life choices, albeit with great convenience.\n\n3) Technological unreliability:\n\nAs far as technology goes, I don\u2019t believe it takes a large amount of processing power on the consumer end, and most people either use contactless on their phone or card anyway. On the sales end, I think it\u2019s a decently large problem, mainly due to the banks having trouble seemingly constantly. I think the main thing holding this idea back may well be the bank\u2019s issues, as well as the ubiquity of cash.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcrbwg",
                    "author": "derpindirk",
                    "body": "I think you are grossly exaggerating how much the government cares about what you do or buy. \n\nYour phone literally tracks your every movement, which stores you visit and brokers that data to advertisers.\n\nCash/cashless is not the argument to have. It's about a standard of privacy that needs to be developed and enforced.\n\nDoesn't really matter if you buy something in cash when your phone knows who you communicate with and where you go. \n\nAlso, it's never going to happen.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwd6xzk",
                    "author": "CorianderSuuucks",
                    "body": "This. Tbh im not worried about the government tracking what I buy, im really not that interesting. And neither are most average people.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwcrbwg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwe6v57",
                    "author": "Solid_Local409",
                    "body": "Theres no point to paper currency, we should just switch back to trading resources, and those without resources can be given paper currency replacements.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jweyilm",
                    "author": "Baldegar",
                    "body": "Cashless systems are in broad use in Africa because they reduce theft, violence in the process of theft, and cash loss due to other factors. This includes thefts by government actors as well as non government criminals.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg2e0b",
                    "author": "jmilan3",
                    "body": "I do not want go cashless! I do use a debit card but I also like to have cash on me. You really can\u2019t over draw your bank account with cash lol",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqef06",
                    "author": "jpsneakerss",
                    "body": "we should move to a society with no currency whatsoever \ud83d\udc4d imagine how obesity rates would change when people had to go outside and grow their own food / hunt - imagine how everyone would start out together in the same class no matter race / primary language / etc. This argument is unrelated but just something to think about. Money is the root of all evil",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwxog1w",
                    "author": "Important_Tutor_6195",
                    "body": "Cash better",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5p4xvt",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "The main issue I have with cashless is it makes banks richer and removes more money from the overall pool.\n\nWhen I pay an artist 20$ in cash they all of that $20.  Then he pays a butcher $20 and so on ...  The $20 stays $20.\n\nDigital transactions somebody usually banks are skimming transaction fees.  And that money to the banks and stays with the banks.  It is no longer in the overall pool of money.\n\nI def prefer cash.  Because for my lifetime it has always worked as intended.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5p5z2m",
                    "author": "Internal-End-9037",
                    "body": "Also the ease of hacking is only getting worse and AI will only make that worse \n\nI mean a frickin Casino was hacked.\n\nSo when your account, or a bank is wiped clean then what?\n\nIf the grid goes out for week and you cannot buy food, then what.\n\nCorporation want cashless so they can get rid of more employees and make more profit but if a system breaks down people cannot buy anything.\n\nAlso homeless without cards or phones cannot buy anything but corporations don't mind that it seems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5p4xvt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rqk4o",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I am someone who is quite alarmed by the rapid replacement of cash with digital currency in day-to-day life.\nWhile I appreciate that digital currency has certain advantages, I think that there are a number of very concerning issues that need to be addressed before I feel comfortable with replacing cash entirely.\nFirstly, cash is much more anonymous, which means that while it\u2019s true that a plumber or  tradesmen who doesn\u2019t want to report his taxes can\u2019t be tracked, it also protects ordinary people from having their purchases tracked and scrutinised by a third-party.\nI find it quite strange that if a policeman or authority figure came up to most of us, and asked to know what we had spend our money on, we would feel hesitant and concerned in telling them that yet with digital transactions, there is literally a log of everything That your money has ever been spent on.\nWhile you might trust your current government implicitly, there is always the possibility that your government is replaced by another which is much more hostile to your rights and can use this information against you.\nSecondly, there is a problem of leaving people with disabilities and the elderly behind.\nDigital exclusion is a real problem as many in society. Don\u2019t have the ability to use this technology.\nThirdly, technology often has a habit of breaking down and most people are not technologically literate.\nThis means that if the method of payment breaks down, it will be more difficult to fix it rather than simply using cash.\nThe other point about technology is that it requires power, and in some cases, access to the Internet, which is not widely available in certain rural  areas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: we should not move to a cashless society",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rqk4o/cmv_we_should_not_move_to_a_cashless_society/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6tnp0y",
                    "author": "TheTDL777",
                    "body": "Its all about Control many still haven't seen that and I really dont they will till it is to late sadly oh well it was always going to go this way anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-10-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rqk4o"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15rrvlp",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwa5lca",
                "author": "Jakyland",
                "body": ">It appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia)\n\nThis is not something western countries are incapable of doing, it is something they are choosing not to do.",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwa712h",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta \n\nTechnically, it is possible to convince (or if you're anti-refugee, trick) Westerners into becoming more pro-refugee. And in that case, we could theoretically do something to help, by providing a safe haven.",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwa5lca"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwa731k",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Jakyland ([45\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Jakyland)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwa712h"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa1jt9",
                    "author": "AutoModerator",
                    "body": "**Note:** Your thread has **not** been removed.\nYour post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our [wiki page](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/mensrights#link) or via the [search function](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/search?q=men's rights&amp;amp;restrict_sr=on).\n\nRegards, the mods of /r/changemyview.  \n\n\n*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/changemyview) if you have any questions or concerns.*",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa221j",
                    "author": "truthseeker3408",
                    "body": "Out of ur mind buddy. We\u2019ve got millions of Americans who can barely feed themselves and rampant homelessness in every state.\n\nThat needs to be taken care of first before handouts to other countries.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa5f0h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I agree, but how does that change my view regarding the original question?",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa221j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa41er",
                    "author": "mortalviperkillsquad",
                    "body": "Some ideas:\n\n* Fund western programming into the region, as we do with Voice of America in Persian, to inform and inspire. \n\n* Leverage legitimacy by giving and taking. That means not just punishing but rewarding steps toward favored policy. Only reducing recognition and increasing sanctions for example, and not lifting them ever, never work. \n\n* Leverage conflict between Taliban government and its competitors, including IS, AQ, Iran, economic competitors like China toward favored behavior. \n\n* Encourage and permit emigration, advocate for oppressed people and individuals in country.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa61mn",
                    "author": "RFK_supporter",
                    "body": "What's the intention here? \n\nTo conduct a psyop to force Afghanistan to become something it doesn't want to be?\n\nI can understand where you are coming from but why is America trying to force everyone to change?",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa41er"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa4rc2",
                    "author": "_thechampishere_",
                    "body": "Who cares, we have our own issues right here",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa69hr",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I agree, but you fail to address the point of the CMV.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa4rc2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa596h",
                    "author": "Any-Try-8293",
                    "body": "Afghanistan in general does not want our help, and the west in general doesn\u2019t have the mindset that would allow us to help. We absolutely could if we decided to, but we do not have the willpower to make it happen.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa6qgw",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">We absolutely could if we decided to, but we do not have the willpower to make it happen.\n\nWe tried for 20 years. And it cost us a lot. And with the Taliban back in power, it's all for nothing. \n\nHow can I be confident that we're capable of achieving this goal even if we had the willpower? How can I be sure that we won't turn them against us with war crimes, and that the government we set up doesn't become corrupt and useless?",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa596h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa7gn7",
                    "author": "SouthDakota_Baseball",
                    "body": "I am currently living in Uzbekistan. \n\nJust research how Islam spread to Afghanistan for how hard it is to convert Afghans to something else. Military invasion, coerced into converting to Islam, the government left and they went back to tribal religions. Repeat constantly for 400 years. It took Timur to actually make Afghanistan Muslim.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa7qq0",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": ">So, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders.\n\nRather than trying to \"fix\" the plight of Afghanistan's women, how about working on the plight of US women? Compared with Europe, the US is way behind in maternity and paternity leave. Not just that, but when schools and day cares closed because of COVID-19, many many women were pushed beyond the limit in dealing with a full time job plus having their struggling kids at home.\n\nWhat I'm really trying to say is that\n\n* Trying to export our culture all around the world is ethically dubious.\n* Efforts to export our culture elsewhere have largely failed.\n\nInstead of trying to \"fix\" how women are treated in Afghanistan, we should be trying to make life better for women here.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaa5d7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Rather than trying to \"fix\" the plight of Afghanistan's women, how about working on the plight of US women? Compared with Europe, the US is way behind in maternity and paternity leave. Not just that, but when schools and day cares closed because of COVID-19, many many women were pushed beyond the limit in dealing with a full time job plus having their struggling kids at home.\n>\n>What I'm really trying to say is that\n>\n>* Trying to export our culture all around the world is ethically dubious.\n>\n>* Efforts to export our culture elsewhere have largely failed.\n\nWhy not? But this whataboutism is irrelevant. If women's rights were considered antithetical to Afghan culture, Afghan women wouldn't be complaining.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa7qq0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwa8ric",
                    "author": "marxianthings",
                    "body": "First of all, what the US did in Afghanistan was not a \"blunder.\" It actually fits the pattern of the US occupying countries or bombing them with imperialist ambitions. \n\nPart of the reason the Taliban are in power is because the US helped them take power in the 80s. The US funded and armed radical Islamic groups and spread radical ideology under Operation Cyclone.\n\nThe US has long opposed any and all progressive movements around the world. In Indonesia in the 60s, the US helped right wing dictator Soharto murder over a million people to crush the communist movement which was allied with the strong feminist movement (membership of both was in the millions). \n\nSimilarly in Pakistan, under US backed dictator Zia-ul-Haq, progressives, socialists, communists, trade unionists were all persecuted, and the conservative religious leaders empowered. \n\nThere is also evidence that the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) had a hand in creating the Taliban. And we know that the US and Pakistan militaries have worked together closely. Pakistan is basically a pawn of the US since the cold war. We see this even today as the US pressured the Pakistan military to oust popular PM Imran Khan, and has pressured Pakistan to pull out of a mutually beneficial gas pipeline deal with Iran (which will cost Pakistan $18 billion in penalties).\n\nSo this is long held pattern of the US and NATO funding and arming right wing  militias around the world in the name of \"anti-communism\" or just to benefit corporate interests. \n\nNATO, under Operation Gladio, was even committing terrorist attacks within Europe. The US was helping the Contras commit genocide in Nicaragua. The Iran-Contra scandal wasn't a blunder, it was part of this our imperialist strategy. \n\nSince then the US have continued to do similar things while also backing the most backward dictators in the Muslim world. The US and NATO destroyed Libya, which had the highest quality of life in Africa at the time. The US destroyed Iraq and Syria, and in the process empowered ISIS. \n\nAfghanistan in the 80s was a budding democracy, and whatever you think of the Soviets, they did not empower the most right wing and fascist elements of their society. Up until recently until the US left, they were collaborating with Warlords for military goals.\n\nSo what can the US do? \n\nFirst of all, release the money they stole from the Afghan people after the Taliban took power, which led to widespread starvation. It was straight up genocide.\n\nSecond, pay reparations to Afghanistan so they can rebuild their infrastructure and the refugees can return home.\n\nThird, stop their alliance with radical Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East who continue to spread the toxic Salafist ideology and fund its allies. This includes the Americans' best friends the Saudi royal family. \n\nOnly with improving economic conditions can there be a political struggle within Afghanistan for people to win democratic and civil rights. You cannot do it while people are starving. You can't do it when the country is at war and children are orphaned. You can't do it when outside forces are empowering feudal warlords for their own gains.\n\nAnd yes, continue to accept refugees.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaaswf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">First of all, release the money they stole from the Afghan people after the Taliban took power, which led to widespread starvation. It was straight up genocide.\n\n>Second, pay reparations to Afghanistan so they can rebuild their infrastructure and the refugees can return home.\n\nAre the Taliban working in good faith? We don't want them to see the removal of sanction as an endorsement for their actions.\n\n>Third, stop their alliance with radical Islamic dictatorships in the Middle East who continue to spread the toxic Salafist ideology and fund its allies. This includes the Americans' best friends the Saudi royal family. \n\nYes, why not put some strings on the Saudi alliance too to force them to be less reactionary?\n\n>Only with improving economic conditions can there be a political struggle within Afghanistan for people to win democratic and civil rights. You cannot do it while people are starving. You can't do it when the country is at war and children are orphaned. You can't do it when outside forces are empowering feudal warlords for their own gains.\n\nAs you brought up Saudi Arabia, their case goes to show that improving economic conditions do nothing to help win democratic and civil rights.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwa8ric"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwao72h",
                    "author": "GainPornCity",
                    "body": " We respect the 1st Amendment rights of nations. We'd only ask that you not keep them prisoner. Allow free travel. *to other nations if they want* That's all we really have to do. We don't need to change the Middle East, nor do we want to.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwaou49",
                    "author": "Zncon",
                    "body": ">It appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees\n\nThis doesn't do anything to help improve the country, and in many cases will actually harm it. The people with the will and resources to get out are the same people who should be in a strong position to fix things from the inside.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwd4wek",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">This doesn't do anything to help improve the country, and in many cases will actually harm it. The people with the will and resources to get out are the same people who should be in a strong position to fix things from the inside.\n\nBut can they fix things from the inside? It appears that the Taliban has created a system where their more civil opponents have been made powerless to stop them. I say \"more civil\" here because the one opponent they don't have a stranglehold on is ISIS-K.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwaou49"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwap1ud",
                    "author": "JustSomeDude0605",
                    "body": "If the Afghani people can't be bothered to rise up against the Taliban, why should we do anything to help? It took literally hours before the Afghani people gave complete control to the Taliban after the US left.\n\nI'm very against allowing refugees from countries that don't hold the same classical liberal values that we do in the West (including Australia and NZ). Too many of those people don't believe in equal rights for woman, other minorities, LGBTQ people, or atheists.  \n\nThey can stay in Afghanistan and fight back, because most of us don't want them here.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwd6itq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">If the Afghani people can't be bothered to rise up against the Taliban, why should we do anything to help? It took literally hours before the Afghani people gave complete control to the Taliban after the US left.  \n>  \n>I'm very against allowing refugees from countries that don't hold the same classical liberal values that we do in the West (including Australia and NZ). Too many of those people don't believe in equal rights for woman, other minorities, LGBTQ people, or atheists.\r  \n\r\n\nI was under the impression that the Taliban won because the government we installed was corrupt and useless, not because the Taliban had overwhelming support. After all, Afghans were literally clinging to departing aircraft. That level of desperation is not found in those wanting to go to a Western country to bring oppression with them.\n\n>They can stay in Afghanistan and fight back, because most of us don't want them here.\r  \n\r\n\nAnd if they're all eradicated by the Taliban, who will be left to challenge Taliban policies?",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwap1ud"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwarnfm",
                    "author": "VinceLGBTQP",
                    "body": "It's their country. We can't really force them to change. Ultimately it's up to them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwd6od1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If women's rights (or human rights in general) were antithetical to Afghan culture, we wouldn't see Afghan women complaining or so many refugees trying to flee Taliban rule.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwarnfm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwbd4x8",
                    "author": "misersoze",
                    "body": "I bet if you made Afghanistan the 51st state where all a Afghans could freely move to the US and all US citizens could move to Afghanistan, that this would change women\u2019s rights for the better in a meaningful and sustainable way. Not saying that there wouldn\u2019t be other political fallout but just that this would actually change things",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwbhvfi",
                    "author": "Fearless_Apricot_458",
                    "body": "I am against the idea of intervening in other nations because we don\u2019t approve of their culture. It\u2019s none of our bloody business and usually leads to strife. Let them be.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcz3qv",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's not that we don't approve of their culture. If Afghan culture were genuinely antithetical to womens' rights, Afghan women wouldn't be complaining.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwbhvfi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwbpnbn",
                    "author": "LigPortman69",
                    "body": "Well duh. Only Afghans can change that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcc8dq",
                    "author": "stewartm0205",
                    "body": "You can\u2019t free people who want to be slaves. Freedom requires the acceptance of the needed to make choices. Some people like the inherent structure of slavery.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwd743k",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If it were Afghan culture (or simply something they enjoyed) to have no rights, then they wouldn't be complaining or becoming refugees to flee Taliban rule.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwcc8dq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwcupwb",
                    "author": "georgewastaken3",
                    "body": "I\u2019m not gonna really change your view with this one.\n\nAfghanistan is a Middle Eastern country that is fixated on by America because of the war and most likely out of embarrassment because they funded the taliban in the Cold War and they wanted to right that wrong.\n\nI specify that it is Middle Eastern because a common value in the Middle East is Sharia Law, the law that is laid out by the Qur\u2019an. This law essentially makes women second class citizens, forbids public displays of love and being gay, among other things; it\u2019s clearly very traditional.\n\nThe reason I bring all of this up is because of a key point, the only country that really seems bothered by Afghanistan to a point where they want to deploy troops is America, and in my opinion, that\u2019s because they failed. The taliban are doing a good job defending against ISIS, all things considered and I\u2019d go as far as to say that the US is picking on Afghan just as they did Iraq; because they need a weaker kid to pick on.\n\nIt happened with Iraq, it happened with Vietnam and it happened with Afghanistan, and quite frankly, it never goes well for them.\n\nSo no, I don\u2019t think America will reform Afghanistan\u2019s government, because in many ways it\u2019s functionally similar to a more corrupt and budget UAE, and the US wouldn\u2019t even dream of trying to get Oil from the UAE.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwczm7h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I specify that it is Middle Eastern because a common value in the Middle East is Sharia Law, the law that is laid out by the Qur\u2019an. This law essentially makes women second class citizens, forbids public displays of love and being gay, among other things; it\u2019s clearly very traditional. The locals don\u2019t really seem to have a problem with it, and the ones who do seem to be able to flee the country \u201con holiday\u201d just fine.\n\nAfghanistan was more progressive 50 years ago than today. Also, if Afghan culture were genuinely antithetical to womens' rights, Afghan women wouldn't be complaining.\n\n>It happened with Iraq, it happened with Vietnam and it happened with Afghanistan, and quite frankly, it never goes well for them.\r  \n\r\n\nIt says something how badly we performed in Afghanistan when present-day Iraq is a more functional state despite being invaded at a similar time.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwcupwb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwda56r",
                    "author": "Hannibal_Barca_",
                    "body": "Technically if the west nukes Afghanistan to oblivion killing all its citizens and having so much radiation that no one would move there, we could successfully remove issues related to women rights in Afghanistan. \n\nIt's probably not the solution you were hoping for, but it does technically solve the problem... by eliminating the possibility that there could be a problem.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwdkl3s",
                    "author": "cargaretzma",
                    "body": "Well duh.",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfco0t",
                    "author": "LucidLeviathan",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/cargaretzma \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20cargaretzma&message=cargaretzma%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/-/jwdkl3s/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).\r\n\r\nSorry, u/cargaretzma \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \r\n\r\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \r\n\r\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20cargaretzma&message=cargaretzma%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/-/jwdkl3s/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwdkl3s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jweeovy",
                    "author": "Pl0OnReddit",
                    "body": "Idk.  We could try bombing and killing them again.  It worked for awhile.  I guess you just have to be able to quantity how many lives are worth women's rights.  \n\nWe could totally have more deaths and more women's rights.  We've already proven that.  I suppose we just don't have the will anymore because we've decided the costs are too high.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwevz0y",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Idk. We could try bombing and killing them again. It worked for awhile.\n\nThe premise of this post implies that we can't do anything sustainable to help improve women's rights. A program that we know only \"worked for awhile\" is not a sustainable one.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jweeovy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfgj4n",
                    "author": "beltalowda_oye",
                    "body": "To be fair Afghanistan was on their way of becoming a fairly liberal country but during the cold war there was a fuckton of foreign influence from the major powers (West vs Soviets). In the 60s, parts of Afghanistan looked impressively modern.\n\nWe like to look at countries where a lot of positive came to feel like we are the good guys but the cold war and wars waged over communism vs democracy all it did was create instability across the world. Countries like South Korea are the exception, not the norm.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15rrvlp",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This morning, I watched ABC News 24 and they had [a news story about the Taliban winding back women's rights in Afghanistan](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-15/how-have-the-taliban-changed-afghanistan-since-2021/102730644)\n\nIt appears that the best we can do is accept more refugees (which is not a popular opinion in Australia). Any other possible actions seem bound to fail disastrously:\n\n* Afghanistan is already under heavy sanctions, and this did nothing to convince the Taliban to change their ways. In their case, sanctions aren't working (at most, they're hurting the civilians, not the regime).\n\n* If you want military intervention, the last time there was Western military intervention in Afghanistan, it took 20 years and trillions of dollars, only for the government we set up to collapse faster than anyone expected. Is there a reason I should believe that if we militarily intervened again:\n\n   * It won't be as expensive?\n\n   * We can stop our troops from committing as many war crimes?\n\n   * The government we set up doesn't become extremely corrupt and weak?\n\n* If you want a regime change operation, this might lead to same or worse results considering that toppling the Taliban might allow ISIS-K to take over.\n\nSo, I must concede, that Westerners need to accept that the plight of Afghanistan's women can't be fixed by us. And this is mainly the fault of our geopolitical blunders. Ironically, the only measure I can foresee causing meaningful and sustainable gains for women's rights in Afghanistan is if the PRC uses its economic power to manipulate the Taliban into changing their ways, but I'm not holding my breath (plus, human rights are a low priority for the CCP).",
                    "date": "2023-08-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Western countries are incapable of doing anything meaningful or sustainable for women's rights in Afghanistan",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15rrvlp/cmv_western_countries_are_incapable_of_doing/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfrcbj",
                    "author": "HelloBello30",
                    "body": "its almost as if its a different country and you should mind your own business",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15rrvlp"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15sq1vm",
                "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                "date": "2023-08-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwfm0pm",
                "author": "rocketwidget",
                "body": ">For example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok.\n\nI think this risk is low, but regardless, to mitigate it, I use a password manager that is not a service for this reason, KeePass. All encryption/decryption is done on my local machine with open-source software.\n\nI've never had the experience of not having my phone or computer, and still needing a password.\n\n> If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety\n\nThis is fine! I just think that the *vast* majority of people don't do this and replicate passwords with poor variety, or *think* they are doing this... but are not....\n\nI couldn't do this! I have *over a hundred* passwords, and many different times my many different accounts force me to change my passwords. The password manager not only helps me guarantee a sufficiently unique password, but even helps me remember all my accounts.",
                "date": "2023-08-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwfnwbw",
                "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                "body": "Interesting. I didn't consider the angle of remembering your accounts as well.\n\n!delta",
                "date": "2023-08-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwfm0pm"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwfo1gh",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/rocketwidget ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/rocketwidget)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwfnwbw"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfgerv",
                    "author": "Zogonzo",
                    "body": "A lot of people may not have the mental capacity to devise a pw system and remember it. For instance, older people. I've done tech support for over 10 years. People of a certain age struggle with this stuff in a very real way. A pw system would not work for them. Their options are a pw manager or using the same easily-remembered, weak password for everything.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfhtc1",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I realize I didn't explicitly say \"people who, like me, could use a password pattern instead\", but I thought that was implied. While you're correct, you are using a very narrow and specific set of people who clearly could use a password manager. But even then, why is that better than writing them down? \n\nUnder your conditions, you have an older person who likely only uses one computer in a single location anyway. What's wrong with pen and paper?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfgerv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfgolw",
                    "author": "LucidLeviathan",
                    "body": "Great topic for a CMV. Thanks!\n\nSo, I use a password manager myself. I have tried setting up a system like you describe. It didn't work for me. Here's why:\n\n1. I couldn't always remember the suffix I used for various websites. If I, for example, used Bank of America, is the suffix BOA? Bank? BankOfAmerica? (I don't bank with Bank of America, FYI)\n2. Websites changed names and sometimes the original suffix didn't make sense any more.\n3. If one password gets compromised and somebody sees that you are using a suffix-based password system, it becomes trivial to get access to all of your accounts.\n4. Obviously, using the same password everywhere isn't a good idea.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwficxp",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "Thanks for the positivity! For some reason, I've really been beaten when bringing this up in the past.\n\nRegardless, it sounds like your system isn't great and can be overcome by simplifying and standardizing the system. Worst case, you can reset the password you forgot and bring it inline with your system.\n\nA good system also includes updates over time to change the pattern every year or 3 to account for breaches and changes. \n\nYou're right that if someone sees the pattern, that might be a risk, but how strong a risk is that really? That too, depends on your system. For example, if you only use the pattern passwords for websites that aren't that important - streaming services, reddit, etc?\n\nFor important stuff, you either write them down or have a more advanced system (if you can remember/use it).",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfgolw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfgyeq",
                    "author": "username_6916",
                    "body": "Not using a password manager encourages password reuse. And I'd argue that password reuse is a pretty major concern: The problem is that not every service you sign up for handles passwords properly. They might not even hash the passwords, of if they do they might have something as simple as an unsalted MD5 that can be easily checked across precomputed tables inputs, or quickly brute-forced on modern hardware. Or they could be logging plaintext passwords somewhere. Or they could be so fully owned that a remote code execution exploit modifies the app to forward all user passwords to the attacker. This allows an attacker to leverage compromising one thing (say, your account on a webgame or forum) into accessing something more sensitive (like a bank or brokerage account) if you're re-using passwords.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfih2s",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "\"Not using a password manager encourages password reuse.\"\n\nI reject this premise as using a password pattern or system is the opposite of reuse.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfgyeq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfh3wa",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": ">For example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked\n\nIt can, yes, but given that most of these services are hardened against hacking, its is safer than your average internet site. \n\n>disrupted\n\nMost support local caching, which minimizes this problem.\n\n>or is subject to access by its employees \n\nMost are E2E encrypted, so the employees don't have access to the data.\n\n>If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety\n\nSure, **if** you do that then you are likely better off, but the **average** person isn't going to put that kind of time and effort into developing strong passwords.  The **average** person is going to reuse the same password on multiple sites, because remembering the 100ish passwords we all have these days is too much, and developing a system for unique password generation that is _also_ easy to remember is too much work.\n\nThis is a perfect example of \"don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough.\"  For the average internet user, a password manager is _much, much better_ than their current system of password reuse.  It isn't _as good_ as memorized individualized passwords, but that doesn't mean it isn't better than nothing and it isn't worth it for the average person.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfiyft",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "This CMV is about password managers versus password systems. I would argue that a solid and simple pattern is better than reuse AND better than password managers. \n\nIf I tried to teach my non-computer friends how to install, use, and detect attacks against password managers, that would be extremely difficult from what I can see. Whereas teaching them a simple system based on the website they're on (with obvious exceptions for email and other critical websites) seems more effective on the whole.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfh3wa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfhm2k",
                    "author": "RseAndGrnd",
                    "body": "As an IT person which would you say is more secure:  Using the same simple password for every site you go to or using a range of harder passwords which are stored in a legitimate password manager?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfjh43",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "Obviously the latter, but since the former is not remotely related to this CMV, what's your point?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfhm2k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfi3iv",
                    "author": "Dennis_enzo",
                    "body": "Tools like keepass don't use a service, it merely stores your password in an encrypted file on your PC. This file can be shared without danger as long as your master password is safe.\n\nProblem with not using it is that you either:\n\na) Use the same password for everything. This is dangerous because only one service that you use it on needs to get hacked, and now the hacker can access every other site or service that you use that password for.\n\nb) Use a different password for everything, but they need to be simple and probably still similar to each other because no one can memorize dozens of different complicated passwords.\n\nNeither option is safer than using a password manager tool.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfk6v7",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "You've made a false assumption that the only two options are same password or manager. A good pattern system is based on the website you're at so it changes naturally from one site to another. This also removes your second point because it's not necessary to have a simple password to have an easy to remember password. Since people don't seem to know what I mean, I've updated my post with an example.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfi3iv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfib5j",
                    "author": "Mysterious-Bear215",
                    "body": ">For example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok.\n\nWhat about open source solutions that would be on your control? You don't have to hire someone else services.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfk9ps",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "How do you handle the issue of being on other computers? Friend, family, work, hotel, etc? You're just screwed?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfib5j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfjfq5",
                    "author": "xynix_ie",
                    "body": "Also in IT, about 25 years or so. Mostly security and data security.\n\nGreat point on the single attack profile that a password manager provides for. Instead of going through the trouble of fishing contacts on LinkedIN you can get an entire enterprise's passwords in one go.\n\nThere is a threat there but does that threat outweigh na\u00efve password creators?\n\nOne of my first IT gigs was changing passwords for generals back to 123456 because they couldn't be bothered with the newly implemented 90 day change policy. The same policy I later rolled out for a major financial institution who's CIO asked me to do the same to his password. He also demanded I check that \"password doesn't need to be changed ever\" box.\n\nSo the reality here is that we have IT Users and they're a wild bunch. For me? I wouldn't use a password manager but for the masses I think it's a lot less risk than having them use the same generic passwords for everything they do.\n\nFor instance LinkedIn is getting hacked right now as I type and user accounts are being taken over by brute force and known credential attacks. The same known credentials that could be used at XYZ company. \n\nEnforcing a local password management policy for those users makes all other outside passwords irrelevant. So by policy IT has dictated that the users enterprise password is super hard to crack because they're in a password manager vs using a variant of the LinkedIn password.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfm7c2",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I get what you're saying, but why are you presenting this as \"password manager or same password everywhere\". What about teaching the kind of system I posted in the question? \n\nAlso, if you know anyone on the LinkedIn dev team, can you message me? They have a few key UX and functions that they seem to have overlooked that the tool desperately needs (and don't seem like they'd be hard to add).",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfjfq5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfjj7t",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "Can you give an example of the password systems you think people should use?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfma70",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "It's in my post.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfjj7t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfjxb2",
                    "author": "mem269",
                    "body": "My argument would be that you wouldn't use it for those instances. So many random, games, apps etc need a password where it isn't necessary. I don't want to use a personalised hard password for the app that controls my smart lightbulbs, but I also don't want to put one I use for other things on some random app that I know nothing about.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfmeqa",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "Not really following. You're saying you wouldn't use a password manager for ... what?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfjxb2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwflctf",
                    "author": "kaiizza",
                    "body": "As others have said, and this is really a po8nt against your credentials, you are thinking high level and 99 percent of people just simply never will do that period. Password managers are very easy to use and I have never been someplace without my phone that I could not get a password if needed. They are game changers for internet security. Can you not see the benefits for the 99 percent here?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfm2mx",
                    "author": "saltedfish",
                    "body": "You kinda gloss over it in your post so lemme ask here:\n\nYes, it is a concern that putting all your passwords in one place might allow someone to grab them all, but you don't really talk about how likely that *is.*\n\nHow likely is that to actually happen? Can you quantify the actual risk? Companies that offer these services are well aware that they will be targeted and take steps to avoid security breaches.\n\nUnless you know how robust their security is (or isn't), you can't really claim password managers are a risk \"greater than\" some other system.\n\nA follow-up thought: if you're using passwords at all that means you're engaged in various activities online, which suggests to me you have sensitive information like credit card information stored somewhere on a website (such as Amazon). Why then do you trust Amazon with your credit card information but you don't trust LastPass with your passwords? I should think that a site like LastPass has *better* security policies than a site like Amazon.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgk9i2",
                    "author": "TribeWars",
                    "body": "Lastpass had literally all of its user data stolen, where many of the older password vaults have been insufficiently strongly encrypted.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfm2mx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfm7zl",
                    "author": "UncleMeat11",
                    "body": "It *is* true that if you can consistently produce strong passwords that are unique for each service and remember them effectively that this is better than a password manager. But the truth is that only a tiny number of people actually do this. Even security professionals reuse passwords because it is just easier when they aren't using a password manager. \n\nSecurity advice in this domain is generally focused on practicality rather than perfection. You want to give people advice that will protect as many people as possible with as little pain as possible. Training people to actually not reuse passwords is just observably impossible at scale, while people really do use unique passwords when using a password manager. If credential stuffing is a major problem (and it is), then saying \"use a password manager\" is going to be more effective advice at scale than \"come up with a system that let's you generate unique yet memorable passwords.\"\n\nWe can quibble about the particular structure of your method, but it doesn't matter. The reason people recommend password managers is because it is most effective to give general advice that works well for the vast majority of people rather than focus on edge cases.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfm8b7",
                    "author": "nothankspleasedont",
                    "body": "Problem with your system is once someone had 1 or 2 of your passwords they could easily find your login to basically any website.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfmbbr",
                    "author": "JumpingHooligans",
                    "body": "On a browser password managers validate the domain they are entering your password on and therefore provide better security against phishing attempts than a password system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfmcuf",
                    "author": "avatarv04",
                    "body": "A lot of people are talking about password managers vs using the same password and that\u2019s not what OP\u2019s alternative is.\n\nSo why is a password manager better than a password system? There\u2019s basically 2-3 reasons based on your system and based on what risks you are willing to accept.\n\n1) How does your system handle generating a new password if a site is compromised? Can it generate a new password in a way that you can still remember it but isn\u2019t guessable if an attacker knew your old password? Maybe it does - maybe you\u2019re hashing a seed word or phrase and the site name and a counter for how many times you\u2019ve had to change the password - but that\u2019s something a password manager can handle really easily because your password is truly disposable. \n\n2) How does your system handle serving up your password if you are physically compromised? Somewhat morbid but if you ever are afflicted with a traumatic brain injury or Alzheimer\u2019s, will you be able to log in to your accounts in such a case? If you need to pass on your logins in the event of the worst, will they be easily transferrable? Again, a password manager being external to you has some distinct advantages. Even outside the morbid stuff, managers like Apple\u2019s iCloud password manager is introducing family sharing so you can share passwords with your family, without having to necessarily share your system and make every password compromised.\n\n3) This bit is not related to your system per se, but passwords in general suck. Even if you trust your system, phishing and social engineering mean you can easily be tricked into leaking a password inadvertently. Password managers that do domain inspection can help prevent this, and most are getting even better with passkey support, where you don\u2019t even need a password, just your phone and a biometric authentication. That way there\u2019s nothing to leak, nothing to remember, and anyone who wants in needs your device and your face/fingerprint. I\u2019d recommend everyone move to passkeys managed by these password managers (if you\u2019re on an Apple device, Apple\u2019s is best of class and free)",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgbtn5",
                    "author": "elictronic",
                    "body": "You forgot how does your system handle sites that have weird password requirements that break your system.  UGHHHH",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfmcuf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfn187",
                    "author": "wzx0925",
                    "body": "What about websites where you have multiple accounts for different purposes?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfn54b",
                    "author": "no1krampus",
                    "body": "Thanks for sharing your example password system - I\u2019m wondering if what I came up with for myself as a \u2018formula system\u2019 is too predictable",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfnfnh",
                    "author": "jakeofheart",
                    "body": "I use a local encrypted file to store my passwords. So in order to access it, someone has to break into my home or my WiFi network.\n\nAlternatively, I guess that a mechanical device like a Davinci Criptex lock is even better. Someone needs to physically take it away from you.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfnmas",
                    "author": "Rainbow_Hyphen",
                    "body": "I used to use a pattern that was easy for me to remember but would be nonsensical to anyone else. It worked great. Then my work (at least 15 different passwords) started having us change passwords every X days (different for each system of course), so I added a counter to my base password and I only had to write down the current counter for each site. \n\nNow everything has to be changed every X days AND the new password must differ by more than Y characters from the old one. If I write then down in a physical notebook I'm constantly scratching them out making it hard to find the current one, and I'd have to bring it with me for teleworking or travel. So instead I use an encrypted file with a master password that doesn't change with a backup on a thumb drive everytime a change is made. \n\nSo to your CMV I'd say there are plenty of situations where a password manager is not needed but plenty of others where it is. A password pattern is a great idea but but a one size fits all.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfnvyw",
                    "author": "Shredding_Airguitar",
                    "body": "I think they are for sure, but I frequently encounter very strict password policies at work.  One of them is even a minimum of 18 characters which has rules to prevent them from just being phrases.\n\nKeep in mind if you keep a system like yours, there's always going to be a constant (last 3 letters), if you remove those 3 letters your password takes 13 days to crack.  If you use the same math you basically don't even really have a password over again, so.youd have to remember what math you did for that website to keep is at least slightly random, still with a 13 day at best security.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfnzfs",
                    "author": "TheNorseHorseForce",
                    "body": "IT Systems Architect and Automation Engineer here. \n\n\nI would propose that there are services that actually solve your concerns by never leaving the company network. \n\nHashicorp Vault stores all of its data on the host server and in a backup location. Can be done without ever leaving the company network.\n\nOr, an alternative that uses neither. For example, an IdM solution like Active Directory and all internal company applications using Active Directory (or an extension like realmd to authenticate to AD).\n\nIf you're talking general usage, as consumers,I would agree that \"anything can be hacked;\" however, it's all about risk. \n\nWhat's more likely? An individual's laptop or the KeePass infrastructure? A notebook full of written passwords or Hashicorp Vault's network? \n\nI would say for ease of use and overall security to the average non-IT consumer/employee, absolutely worth it. \n\nIn regards to it being the perfect solution? No, I would agree that it's not perfectly worth it, but it's the best solution we currently have. \n\nTo put it this way, if you were brought on as an IT consultant and the company asked you, \"how should we handle password security?\", what solution would you provide? Of course there are a lot of \"it depends\" based on their environment, but I heavily doubt you would recommend anything other than an IdM and/or password manager solution",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfo45v",
                    "author": "PatNMahiney",
                    "body": "So I actually have a personal password system like you. Here are the two issues I see with this strategy:\n\n1. A password system is only secure until one of the passwords is decrypted. For the systems I've heard of, it's usually not very hard to crack the code once you've seen one or two of the passwords created by that system.\n\n2. Convenience - using a password manager with a browser plug in will automatically generate a random password and then autofill your credentials whenever you need to log in again. Typing in my passwords doesn't take too long, but it still slows me down. Especially on mobile.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfo8q8",
                    "author": "FantasySymphony",
                    "body": "Is there such thing as a perfect system? That can be rotated without running into conflicts? Taking your example of using the last three letters, surely one would run into a conflict here and there. \"gmail\" vs. \"hotmail\" for example. I suppose you handle the conflict with an exception to the rule, and need to remember the exceptions? Or do you augment your system to use more letters? \n\nOne could imagine a very well-thought out system that's written down somewhere like a video game or escape room scenario where you find a password hint on a desk and have to crack the password (not to suggest that's a realistic threat). But would you trust the average person who uses passwords on the internet to come up with well-thought out systems that consider exceptions, rotate them to account for breaches, etc? Might you expect the inconvenience and difficulty involved to lead some people to regress to older, less secure password habits?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfoguc",
                    "author": "h0sti1e17",
                    "body": "I can\u2019t speak for all password managers. \n\nBut Bitwarden relies solely on your master password.  Which needs to be at least 12 or 14 characters long (forgot which).  I use something that is easy to remember but impossible for others to guess. Like for example the first street address number, the city I lived in when I met my wife, and my high school best friends middle name and the symbols equal to the last 3 digits of my childhood phone number.  So I would get something like.  341SecaucusJohn&!)) \n\nEast for me to remember, but nearly impossible to guess. Even if you know all this information about me.  \n\nBitwarden keeps only the encrypted vault. You need that password to decrypt the vault. Without it is useless.\n\nAlso, a password manager can be useful if someone is incapacitated. If someone give their spouse or children their master password they can handle their accounts if they are in the hospital or pass away or whatever.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfoh7f",
                    "author": "Xystem4",
                    "body": "Well for one, you bring up the idea of password managers being a single point of failure, that can be hacked into. Most password managers (and all of the ones that you should actually use) are basically impossible to hack into, and even if they somehow leaked all your passwords they would be hashed to the point where it\u2019s useless to an attacker unless a whole nationstate is trying to get your password (cue the classic XKCD, where they\u2019d just hit you with a pipe until you told it to them instead).\n\nAs for the different machines thing, you can very much have your password manager on all your regular machines. Even if you want to have one that has no online component, and so is as close to totally unbreakable as you want. It will just need a tiny bit of added work when you make a new password, which, let\u2019s be real is not that often. \n\nI am almost never signing into an account on someone else\u2019s machine. And if I am, I can check my manager on my phone to get the password and copy it down manually. No harder than what I\u2019ve had to have done before. \n\nI agree with you on the correct horse battery staple style passwords being a good idea, and I use a similar system for my master passwords. But some of us simply have too many passwords (I\u2019m at over a hundred in my manager), and it\u2019s simply impossible for me to make those all unique and strong passwords.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgs43f",
                    "author": "mcgnms",
                    "body": "Exactly this. Hacking a Pw manager and getting a bunch of hashes won't do a hacker much. Pair this with MFA and the fact that most services only allow a handful attempts before an account lock and you're pretty damn safe.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfoh7f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfotab",
                    "author": "shoomdio",
                    "body": "Don't need to change your mind. It's how I would do it, and I employ people like you.\n\nKeep doing you my man.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh2iz0",
                    "author": "LucidLeviathan",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/shoomdio \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20shoomdio&message=shoomdio%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/-/jwfotab/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwfotab"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfp76t",
                    "author": "cgielow",
                    "body": "You may live in a household and they may be less secure but still use bank cards and other PII that compromises you. Giving them a password manager helps you be more secure through their practices. \n\nYou may also share passwords and regularly update them. A shared password manager makes this trivial. \n\nYou may use a password manager that syncs with your phone so you always have access to your passwords. This is more convenient than the one local encrypted file you\u2019re using. \n\nDepending on the service your password manager may actively help you know when a password has been compromised (pwned.) It may also help you pick a more powerful password than you\u2019d normally use.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfq14x",
                    "author": "Fickle-Area246",
                    "body": "It\u2019s actually pretty simple. You just aren\u2019t recognizing the cost of implementing your system and then still remembering a fuck ton of passwords. Password managers give you the strongest possible passwords, long, completely random passwords, and without requiring any memorization. These passwords are pretty secure, because they\u2019re encrypted even on the company\u2019s end. So hacking the company that owns the password manager app doesn\u2019t give you access to everyone\u2019s passwords. So it\u2019s more secure than you think. But \u201cwhy doesn\u2019t everyone just do what the experts do all the time?\u201d Really? It\u2019s actually a pretty big burden you\u2019re asking to impose on people in a world that is already too complicated and too demanding. Humans weren\u2019t made for this shit.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfrb9u",
                    "author": "PrincessRuri",
                    "body": "I want to take a slight detour and talk about HIPAA security compliance. In 2013 there was a major change in how OCR audited covered entities to ensure that they were compliant. Previously, all that was needed was to present a list of policies and procedures that outlined that the entity was compliant with relevant laws and standards. However what they found, was that while a company may have perfect practices in paper, these standards were not actually upheld in day to day use. For this reason, they changed the standards of not only showing the documents, BUT ADDITIONALLY provide documentation demonstrating records that those policies were actually implemented and audited regularly to ensure they were being carried out.\n\nNow what does this have to do with passwords? A system is only as good and its actual implementation. Your system may work great and be perfectly secure FOR YOU, but that does not not mean it will be correctly implemented by the rank and file average user. This is why you saw the change in NIST standards. For years they recommended unique, long, alphanumeric passwords, which would work fine... if people actually followed the guidance. However, people being people they would either find the simplest way to be compliant with an iterative password, or if they generated a strong password they would have to write it down to keep track of them all.\n\nThey system and policy was strong, but people made it weak. That is what makes password managers great, you narrow it down to 1 STRONG password that protects what are essentially generated keys for the rest of the logins. It minimize the effort that the user and IT department haven't to exert for maximum returns on security. Standards of passwords can be set, maintained, and audited without having to go around asking everyone what their password is.\n\nAlso it solves the \"hit by bus\" problem, both in business and in private life. Your company and/or spouse will have a much better time managing your affairs if there is a vault of passwords.\n\nNow to address your specific concerns:\n\n>can now be hacked\n\nSelf Hosted options are available like BitWarden if you don't trust a 3rd party company.\n\n>disrupted\n\nMost password managers are locally cached. A temporary disruption of service should not impact 99% of people.\n\n>subject to access by its employees\n\nMost password managers are end to end encrypted. They cannot see your passwords without cracking the encryption.\n\n>what about the convenience factor?\n\nPassword Managers have a mobile app or can be configured to grant access remotely. Memorizing passwords is convenient yes, but also has the inconvenience of having to memorize them in the first place. Passwords are inherently a trade off of convenience for security anyways.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfrik7",
                    "author": "SgtMac02",
                    "body": "Ok, I'm going to attack this on a couple of different fronts:\n\nFirst:  There are roughly 33 million LastPass users. You want them all to stop using Lastpass and start using some special and unique password pattern. Can you come up with 33m unique password patterns that you could recommend to each of those individuals? Eventually, there would be a VERY recognizable pattern being used by the 33m users you've taught to create password patterns, right? \n\n&#x200B;\n\nSecond: Obviously, YOU aren't going to teach them this. Who is going to teach 33m users how to create these unique password patterns? Is this some new advertising campaign? Some PSA that your local ISP is going to push out? And now, EVERYONE has had the same exact generic suggestion for how to create a password pattern. So now, ALL the hackers also know the suggested patterns, right? \n\n3rd: Let's assume all of that gets overcome. You've convinced everyone and we're all going to make the switch. Right now Google is remembering most of my passwords for me. It is currently remembering password for over 400 different sites (some with more than one account). How do you propose I transition from my current system of passwords to this new system? If I don't change ALL of them, then I'll never be able to remember which sites are using this new password format, and which ones are the old impossible-to-remember password. \n\nAlso: if I'm having trouble remembering a password for a site and I'm not at home or at my computer, I typically have my phone in my pocket. Guess where I can access that list of Google-stored passwords? On my phone....",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfrqf5",
                    "author": "Global_Exit7063",
                    "body": "The problem isn\u2019t password managers, it\u2019s passwords themselves. Better identification mechanisms are getting cheaper",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfswrg",
                    "author": "Colley619",
                    "body": "I doubt I can change your opinion for use as an IT or security professional, but how about as an average user? For me personally, password managers changed everything. I used to use the same 3 passwords rotated around on everything I did. I\u2019d get notifications that a password was compromised, but I still used it on accounts I didn\u2019t care to change or that were unimportant, or I would mix them up and make a combination of 2 of the 3 I used - eventually I ran out of combinations.\n\nPassword managers open up the ONE *potential* security flaw of having your passwords in this digital basket, but they absolutely fixed the biggest security flaw possible, which was me reusing passwords and not changing them once compromised - but then again, how could I really change dozens and dozens of account passwords as soon as one was compromised??\n\nOn top of this, password manager services help to track when any of your passwords are compromised and help you to change them quickly. They help you create strong passwords and even help against phishing scams. \n\nFor the average non-security professional, password managers help fill pre-existing security flaws and the benefits far outweigh the risk because the risk already exists.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwft4es",
                    "author": "CoolZakCZ",
                    "body": "Is your issue with the password manager or the internet-connectedness of it? What about locally hosting an open-source password manager that is only accessible by physical key? This seems just as secure, if not more secure, than a pattern-based system",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwftgmc",
                    "author": "PoorCorrelation",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve got a family password manager and here\u2019s a couple of great features:\n\n1. If I die or I\u2019m incapacitated my family can request my passwords. It\u2019s recommended in estate planning that you have a way for your next of kin to access your accounts in case you die and this is way safer than writing down all my passwords.\n\n2. I can send other family members secure passwords in a way they know how to open. This has completely stopped the \u201cwhat\u2019s the Netflix password? Oh it\u2019s XXX\u201d messages in the family group chat.\n\nI can use a strong password system, but I can\u2019t make them do it. It got my Mom to start using strong, unique passwords!",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfu4x7",
                    "author": "jake_burger",
                    "body": "My most important passwords all have multi factor authentication, so the eggs aren\u2019t all in one basket.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfuj3p",
                    "author": "SeaBearsFoam",
                    "body": ">For example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok.\n\nI use a password manager on my phone but rarely store passwords in plain text using it for this reason. I essentially use it to track password hints to pair with account info. So an entry would be something like:\n\nReddit\n\nUsername: SeaBearsFoam\n\nPassword: Favorite Ice Cream flavor (last letters capitalized, others lowercase, sub @ for 'a') then dad's birthday in DDMMMYYYY format\n\nThere can be no rhyme or reason or predictable pattern to my passwords, and even if the company managing the app gets hacked or has an internal security breach no one knows my passwords. \n\nIt's *sorta* like 2 factor authentication for everything: Something I have (the app), and something I know (how to translate the hints into a password). True, it's not really 2FA because passwords can still be brute-forced unlike true 2FA, but it seems more secure than having only a pattern. That pattern is a single point of failure to compromise all your passwords, whereas this does not have that issue.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfuo86",
                    "author": "Noctudeit",
                    "body": ">putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky\n\nTrue. The solution is to create and host your own database using open source software such as Keepass or Bitwarden. Even if you use a third-party hosting service, they do not have access to encryption keys and are thus unable to access database contents. The same is true of any hackers who compromise the hosting server.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfup3e",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "On net password managers with auto fill are far better for uptime then individual ones. The sheer volume of password resets for both the company access and third party access are stupid. A password manager negates this.\n\nYour system is also trivially easy to guess if I get one same sample as it\u2019s a partial service name. If you lose a single password you need to reset everything with a new system.\n\nI\u2019d also add volume - I do security research now and my LastPass has 500+ accounts, and OnePassword has another couple hundred. There\u2019s zero chance in hell I will remember a system lol. There\u2019s 30 odd Gmail accounts and 40ish proton mail accounts. Any system will need to depend on the actually email, which I would then need to remember. \n\nIn short keep all your eggs in one basket is a bad idea, but if the alternative is spending 5-10% of your work time looking for the egg you lost it\u2019s more efficient to just keep them in a basket lol.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfusbl",
                    "author": "eneidhart",
                    "body": "Looking at your example password system, it's extremely unclear to me what the \"add math\" step is. If you're adding the same equation to every single password, and the only thing that changes between passwords is based on the site you're logging into, then you're running into nearly the same issue as password reuse with 1 level of obfuscation on top. If it's something more complex than that, well it's hard to tell from your example. I get that you don't want to go into too much detail here though, since you don't want to actually tell Reddit what the system you're using is and risk compromising all your passwords.\n\nBut let's just say for argument's sake that the \"add math\" step is extremely robust. All is well, your passwords are strong and unique, and accessible to you and only you with very little hassle. This is a good system, and far better than what most people are doing. But what do you do if Reddit is hacked and passwords are compromised? You'll need a new password, but will your old password generation algorithm give you a new password? If it can produce multiple outcomes, then it's not very good as a memorization tool. And if it can't, you'll need a new password system. But that's a problem, too. If you just change your Reddit password, you'll need to remember that it uses a different algorithm. If you ever need to change any other passwords for any reason, you'll have to memorize which sites use which algorithms. You could solve that by changing every single one of your passwords to the new algorithm, but that's a pretty daunting task too. I bet most people have 50-100 logins at the very least, and good luck remembering every single one when you set aside a considerable chunk of time to switch everything over.\n\nI'm using 1password as a password manager, and it's extremely easy to use. It's on my phone, so if I need to use a password on a computer that's not mine the most inconvenient part is manually typing in a random string. Any time I login to a site I've forgotten to add to it, it'll prompt me to add that site. It also handles 2FA, monitors password reuse and strength, and makes it extremely easy to change individual passwords. And I should never have to change every single password with this system unless 1password is hacked, and I'd be willing to bet their security is stronger than most if not all the websites I've got stored in it. Even if they are hacked, like what happened with LastPass, my data should still be safe. The LastPass attacker got access to encrypted password data (as well as other, unencrypted data) that he shouldn't have had access to, and if I remember correctly he got it by phishing a dev account. Unless/until he breaks that encryption, those passwords have yet to be compromised. I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about in that scenario, but it's a rare instance that never should've happened in the first place and there's a good chance the attacker never gets any passwords out of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfuybx",
                    "author": "reddituser5309",
                    "body": "This is like a carpenter saying why isn't everyone making all their own furniture, it only takes an hour to make a chair and its way better than the ones at the store. \n\nBecause none of us can be bothered to put the extra effort in and some of us couldn't learn carpentry even if we tried.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfveq1",
                    "author": "captcanuk",
                    "body": "At an enterprise level, they offer a few things more:\n- storing passwords for team accounts\n\n- client side entering those credentials into various websites so you don\u2019t have to remember which email signed up or what the username is if they have to be distinct on their system\n\n- managing a common 2FA Authenticator so you don\u2019t have one person who has a number they need to share in the next 30 seconds for a team login account\n\n- storing backup codes for those accounts\n\n- segregating login info by roles or to specific individuals so IT doesn\u2019t have finances login info\n\n- a full list of services so you can rotate passwords when someone leaves the company \u2014 you know what accounts they had access to and can rotate that password and your other team members will still have access because of the client side extensions retrieving the new password\n\n- most systems have a password rotation policy so your mnemonic password generator has to include some date formation. \n\n- password complexity per site varies with min and max and character set so a mnemonic might not work universally.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfvrd5",
                    "author": "Colin1876",
                    "body": "First off, I think this CMV would be better titled \u201ceveryone should use an individual password system\u201d as you keep coming back to your password system. Nothing wrong with that, but I figured I should note it so as to best address the point you are making. I think that you make some compelling points about password systems and want to address those rather than defend password managers.\n\nI used to have a password system similar to the example one you provided and have sense gotten rid of it and use 1Password entirely.\n\nThis is for one reason alone: I run a business. We have thousands of accounts and passwords which need to be shared with different groups of people while ensuring some degree of security. If someone starts doing marketing, they get access to the marketing vault where they can find lists of vendors that we purchase from, account info, a card used for marketing expenses, but that doesn\u2019t give them access to IT info, or our vendor accounts for non marketing things. A password system is either easy enough that it unlocks the entire business, or hard enough that it ends up going in excel documents that are shared around which is obviously a security problem.\n\nThe other challenge with an individual password system is the naming. It\u2019s extremely common for companies to change, to share logins with another company, or other bizarre things.\nIf I have a password derived from Vendor 1, and then they change their name to Vendor 2, do we change the password for the new name? What if they are then acquired by Vendor 3, the accounts merged with Vendor 4 that Vendor 3 also acquired, and then rebranded as Vendor 5.\nWith enough accounts, this kind of shit happens constantly and it makes the password system based on the website or company name really challenging because you have to know this history of all the changes to even start guessing. That example with 5 vendors is something I\u2019ve seen happen exactly, and all within a month.\n\nAnother challenge with an individual password system is the lack of context for the account. I have no idea who the vendor for our branded hats is, but if I search \u201chat\u201d in 1password, because we tag things extensively, I see that we have 3 entries. 1 for our old vendor, one for beanies, and one for baseball hats. That ability to search is HUGE, we can buy Yamaha equipment from like 15 different distributors we have accounts with. But when I search Yamaha, I only get the distributor that gives us the best pricing for Yamaha products, and our direct Yamaha account, and an entry that stores Yamaha\u2019s promotional sales calendar. With an individual password system, I\u2019m logging into 15 different websites and checking pricing.\n\nAs for accessing passwords when you are at other computers, my phone works very well for that.\n\nThe possibility to store info other than passwords is another huge benefit to password managers. Credit card info, important business info, contact info, login instructions for complicated sites, and notes can all be stored in password managers and otherwise would be stored in a far less secure manner. All employees travel account IDs are stored in our 1Password system. Our travel team uses those constantly when booking flights or hotels.\nIt\u2019s also my one stop shop to pull up employees phone numbers, birthdays, spouses names, kids names, etc.\nAll of our company license numbers are there.\n\nEven personally, I now rely heavily on 1Password. I keep a note of how much each account costs per month in there, I can add notes about usage or whatever I want.\nIt helps me track when I accidentally create a second account with the same service.\n\nFor all these reasons and more, plus the strength of the security of these systems that others have mentioned make it an essential tool.\n\nFor an individual with few accounts, I agree with you, but as soon as you\u2019re sharing passwords or needing to manage more than\u2026 50 or so accounts, I think the strengths of a password manager are too good to pass up",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfwesk",
                    "author": "NudleNut",
                    "body": "I\u2019m working so I\u2019ll keep it light:\n\nShared accounts leveraging TOTP on a Password manager are much more secure than peer sharing. Tying it with SSO and One Trust security, strict controls,  which is important since Mfa can\u2019t be tied to multiple users for a single login without someone\u2019s phone number, etc being used \n\nPassword managers are also more secure as a whole in an organization based off of our security training. End users are silly \n\nPassword managers also leverage auto fill, and other features which enhance user security and workflow. \n\nBack to work!",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfwhjm",
                    "author": "MeButNotMeToo",
                    "body": "Here\u2019s my take:\n* Hacks most likely will not be coming from my phone/desktop being compromised \n* With a password manager, I can use a Mail relay (every account has a unique username/email) and a strong, random password. \n* Even if one account is hacked, or appears in a compromised list, that\u2019s one account, no other accounts share login or password. \n\nThere\u2019s no way I can do the w/o a password manager.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfwq75",
                    "author": "mhuzzell",
                    "body": "I do fundamentally agree with you, and I use a system like you describe, myself. \n\nHowever, I do have problems with it, so I'll present those as advantages that I would have if I used a password manager instead. \n\n1. Some websites force you to use a novel password every time you make a new one, and if you have to for some reason (e.g., a glitch forces you to you the \"forgot password\" button to reset it even though you haven't forgotten), it throws off the whole system. This happened to me with spotify, and because I can't put in the correct password according to my system (since I'd already used it), I can never remember whatever alternative password I set when I signed in. The result is that I've now resigned myself to just having to use the 'forgot password' sign in any time I have to sign in on a new device. It's very inconvenient and would be solved if I used a password manager instead. \n2. Some organisations require you to change your password at regular intervals. My university requires a reset to a new, novel password at least once per year. Since it's only one thing, I just have a completely different alternative system for that, with a predictable internal ratchet so that I can change just one character per year -- which limits my guesswork if I signed in somewhere using it and need to reset to the new one. This would be less manageable if I had to do this across multiple systems, as some people do, and that might be a reason to use a password manager.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfxfqs",
                    "author": "Werv",
                    "body": "Seems the main issue with passwords manager is single point of failure, since you can still use your  unique pattern in it.  \n\n1.  There are local password managers,  If these are getting hacked, you have a lot of security issues (keylogging, worms, virus, etc.).  \n\n2.  With Cloud based, They should be hashed and salted in a way they won't be cleartext when they are hacked.  This is rather useless.  But you are right there is always risk with any security solution.  \n\n3.  Different sites use different requirements.  It does not always fit with your remembering scheme.  And you still have to remember the scheme.  \n\n4. Password managers prevents typos.  \n\n5.  Sites are usually the breach point.  If a person is being targeted directly, and hacker finds the pattern, there's no reason they can't use logic to determine your password remember scheme.  True Random passwords prevents this.  \n\n6.  Password managers can remain up to date with latest encryption/security checks.   Can also be set up with biometrics.  \n\n7.  Having a password manager on your phone solves the away from computer issue. \n\n\nRead into different Password managers security practices to find out what they do to prevent breaches.   Here's 1Pass info: https://support.1password.com/1password-security/",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfxicg",
                    "author": "rudster",
                    "body": "I used to use a system like yours but I got beaten down by all the sites that insist you use capital letters, symbols, no repeating letters, phase of the moon as an emoji, etc etc. None of them bother to tell you their particular password rules when you have to enter the password.\n\nThen many of them force you to change your password every few months, often for things I only log into every few months. And those often insist you never repeat your last 3 passwords.\n\nSo what am I supposed to do?  They've kind of forced everybody to let a password manager handle it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfy6ar",
                    "author": "potatopotato236",
                    "body": "What about cases where you want to share your password with someone and have it kept in sync whenever you update it? I share quite a few passwords with my wife that way. It was hard enough to convince her to use the app, it'd be impossible to get her to use some sort of algorithm.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfyted",
                    "author": "Xanatos",
                    "body": "A good password manager will provide controlled sharing of passwords in a way that your personal password 'system' does not.  In case you die or rendered mentally unable to recall your passwords, this means they are all still available to you or your caretaker/bereaved spouse.\n\nExample:  I use a personal system similar to yours for generating my unique passwords.  So I can still access them on a friends computer.   But then I also store them all in Bitwarden, which makes using them damned convenient. \n More importantly, it lets me set things up so that one other user (my wife) can request permanent and complete access to all my passwords at any time.  If she does this, I get an email asking me if that's OK, and if I don't say no to that request within a couple days, Bitwarden gives her all my passwords.\n\nThis is perfect, since I'm getting older now and one of these days I'll...you know...the bucket...or maybe Alzheimer's...who knows... :(\n\nI remember what a nightmare it was for my mom to take over all her household accounts, utilities, etc, when my dad (who handled most of that stuff) passed away a couple years ago.   I don't want my wife to go through that, so this 'safe sharing' of passwords is a very big deal to me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfz6r3",
                    "author": "TheoreticalFunk",
                    "body": "Any kind of lock is meant to keep people honest.  You can buy the most sophisticated lock for your front door and it means nothing because anyone can break a window.  \n\nPasswords are pretty much the same.  If you are serious about security, you're using 2FA.  If you aren't, you're strictly using passwords.  And thus the password manager is simple, easy and gets the job done.  As a user I don't have to think about it.  \n\nEverything is designed to be good enough.  And for most people that's good enough.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfzu65",
                    "author": "felidaekamiguru",
                    "body": ">If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to.\n\nYou're the only one that's going to do this. Of course it's more secure that way. Most people cannot do this. If I'm trying this method, I'm going to need to store that data on my phone. Now if my phone gets hacked, or the backup of my phone online gets hacked, they have all my passwords, and to make things worse, Google might not even tell me my online data was hacked for months; they don't know the gravity of the situation for me.\n\nIt's generally accepted that the greatest point of failure in IT is between the computer and chair. For the vast vast VAST majority of people, a password manager is the way to go.\n\nPlus, if you're using a similar password for multiple sites, and just changing a few digits for the site hash, you're wide open for a brute force attack. If I get your password for one site, and try a bunch of similar passwords for another, you're boned.\n\nI have one password for my bank, another for my manager, and that's about all I remember. I keep the bank password in my head only, because that's probably the most important one. Nothing else is critical enough to be worth the inconvenience.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwfzub0",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "The problem with password systems is that they tend to be brittle against a number of problems:\n\n1. Whatever shortcut you use for the site name, there are websites that will mimic that. Your example of Yahoo is great until you get an account at Yoo-hoo.com. You can have an exception system, but now you're back to remembering passwords, which humans suck at. \n\n2. Password change rules vary. And you're very unlikely to go back to every site you have an account on and change it every 3 months just because your work email requires that. So where's your system now? If it needs a time component, then you need to remember the time when you created it last. \n\n3. Sites have different password requirements. Some actually prohibit special characters, which makes your examples impossible to implement. Some have character limits that wouldn't allow CorrectHorseBatteryStaple, especially if you tack on a few numbers related to the website name. Again... exception systems can be made, but that's very complex, especially since those sites rarely remind you of their requirements when you're typing a password.\n\n4. About those examples. Yes, 12 characters with special symbols, upper and lower case, and numbers are strong. As soon as you apply your rule, those 2 passwords only differ by 3 alphabetic characters, which is pathetic. Most people that think their system is strong against this are wrong. \n\n5. Which leads us to: People suck at randomness and math. Yes, CorrectHorseBatteryStaple is pretty strong, but humans have a *terrible* time picking random words, and then remembering a hundred of those combinations. \n\nAlso, FWIW: everyone should (but does not) realize that *actually* using \"CorrectHorseBatteryStaple\" is one of the worst password choices you could make. It's on every rainbow table in existence. \n\nAnd once you make your system complicated enough to fix all of those things, you're left with something that only about 0.01% of the smartest humans can remember and execute correctly... most of the time. \n\nIn the mean time: pick a non-systematic, ridiculously strong password for your email account. People that use a \"systematic\" password for those are incredibly vulnerable, because almost every password change system will let you change your password if you have access to your email account. \n\nFinally: password managers that actually exist out there aren't really hackable as long as you use a very strong master password. They don't store and synchronize your passwords, they store and synchronize an encrypted blob that they never know the password for, only decrypt it locally with said password, and the level of encryption on that is absurdly high. \n\nThe only thing you really need to worry about with a password manager is its recovery mechanisms. If they allow another person to recover it for you, then *their* master passwords better be as strong as yours. If they use recovery codes, you better protect those. If they SMS, well, they're dumb -- no serious password manager system is dumb enough to enable something that ridiculously phishable. \n\nAnd all of this is ignoring the massive *convenience* of password managers. That convenience is actually a security feature, because it keeps people from making poor choices like, well, I'm sorry to say it, but the examples at the end of your post.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg06ct",
                    "author": "jwrig",
                    "body": "Your background should tell you that the weakest link is always the end user, and that security has to balance usability with security. There is also a tendency from security teams that tell people to never reuse passwords, never write passwords down, and to always use different passwords for every site.\n\nPassword managers are a response to that. \n\nPassword managers like the Microsoft Authenticator, Lastpass, keepass, bitwarden, and 1password help simplify these processes, and provide desktop and mobile options. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nYour argument about \"what to do when not on your computer\" is kind of a distraction, especially when we also tell end users to use MFA. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nUltimately, we have to reshape what a password is, which is why there is a tremendous amount of effort being poured into removing the need to enter passwords for every authentication.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg0cgy",
                    "author": "RadElert_007",
                    "body": "Since you have background in cybersecurity like me, I am sure you are aware that in any modern authentication system, passwords are only one aspect of how a user authenticates. \n\nAny system, especially one with potentially sensitive data should also be using 2FA (SMS, authenticator apps or better yet, security keys) and things like Just-In-Time Access and Conditional Access Policies which mitigate most of the security risks of having a password leaked.\n\nSo even if we assume that:\n\n1. The password manager stores credentials in an insecure manner that is open to the internet. (KeePass stores passwords in an encrypted format locally)\n2. The passwords are stored in plain text. (No password manager worth its salt does this)\n3. Passwords do get leaked.\n\nMost IT departments are more than happy to accept the risk because alternative mitigation is in place and the convenience it provides to users justifies the risk. Some ways it is a convenience include:\n\n1. Allowing users to follow the best security practice of using unique hard to guess passwords of significant length without the trouble of remembering them.\n2. Some password managers being able to act as password vault, allowing for secure storage and distribution of credentials that need to be shared (1Password Enterprise has this kind of functionality)\n3. Limiting the blast radius of data breaches on individual services because the passwords are unique across accounts when the password manager is used correctly.\n\nIts not like Password Managers are risk free. Of course there are risks, but as im sure you've dealt with yourself, sometimes the correct solution is to accept the risk because the benefit it brings is worth it or the risk itself is too minimal to justify abandoning an otherwise good product.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg0qtb",
                    "author": "00PT",
                    "body": "Reusing the same password pattern for every website may help against simple attacks that assume people are just reusing their passwords, but as soon as a person starts to look at these results, they could very easily detect the pattern. Password managers often rely on random generation - There is no pattern to recognize. I'd say that is better, as long as the software is integrated well into the places you need it and the master password is strong enough.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg2em6",
                    "author": "Morasain",
                    "body": "There's a few things here.\n\nYes, having an easily applied system that you can use in your head is nice. However, most people simply don't do that. Whether they use identical or very similar passwords - *the majority of people benefit from using a password manager because they stop using identical passwords and just need one good password*. And any system that a human can think of in their head, a computer can crack.\n\nPassword managers aren't as insecure as you make them out to be. Take, for example, keepass. It's hosted on your own machine. The password file never even leaves your computer. How would anyone hack into that? And keep in mind - if someone has remote access to your PC to access an encrypted vault file with your master password, then they'll also have access to just install a key logger, making your system prone to that attack as well.\n\nAnd as for your comment about having it on different devices - I switched to 1password a while ago, and can install it on multiple devices. To do that, I need both a master password as well as a secret key, giving me several layers of protection. Especially on my phone, I can unlock it with my biometrics. That is highly convenient, as typing passwords on a phone is absolute ass. That's a massive amount of convenience right there. And, it solves the issue of not having it with you. I can simply unlock my manager on my phone, reveal the password, and type it into whatever I wanna log into.\n\nFurthermore, obviously my passwords are not subject to being accessed by 1passwords employees - and I would honestly expect you to know that. Kind of like any company will only store your password salted and hashed. The service being hacked doesn't really mean anything either because of how the encryption works. Service disruption could work, but that's why you always have a mirror on your own system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg2u4w",
                    "author": "foxma79",
                    "body": "One thing I haven't seen mentioned is email aliases - my password manager can automatically set up an email alias that instantly forwards to my real email address within a couple of clicks.\n\nThis means that not only are my passwords all unique but also the email address used. If any website is hacked I can just kill that alias and regenerate another if I still want to use them.\n\nAdmittedly this is an extra reliance on an outside service that could have outages, but I have zero spam.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg332z",
                    "author": "DRB_Can",
                    "body": "I used to use a password system, but switched to a password manager. The main reasons for this are:\n\n- I currently have over 150 logins in my password \nmanager. That is far more items than I can remember. This number is because every website and service makes you have a login these days. I switched well before I hit this number, because above around 30 logins I began to no longer be able to remember every login for the reasons below.\n\n- There is no system to remember the usernames. Some websites use the email you sign up with (which email?), some require a unique username. At the minimum you need to remember which login username is an email address, and the username for the ones that don't. Many places have fairly short username character limits, and others require a unique username - it is therefore impossible to systematically create usernames that will be unique and never thought of, while short enough for websites with character limits.\n\n- password requirements also vary widely, so a significant portion of passwords have to break the pattern of the system. For instance some passwords are limited to X characters, others must be at least X long, some don't allow symbols, others require symbols etc.\n\n- if a website is hacked you need to change your password, and this means your new password doesn't fit the password system. Now you need to just memorize the new password.\n\n\nThe password manager I use has no employee access to the passwords. It is just an encrypted file, and you are the only one with the key. Your passwords are basically invulnerable to being hacked, because the encrypted file a hacker would get isn't useful - and the company doesn't store your password to unencrypt the file.\n\nYour only really vulnerable to a keylogger, or someone finding out your password from you. That is a risk, but I don't want to spend more time  remembering and resetting passwords than actually logging in.\n\nI still remember common passwords I use frequently. I have my password manager on my phone, and there are basically no situations I don't have a phone but need a password. On the other hand, forgetting your password and username means taking forever to try and recover your password, and that started happening pretty regularly as the number of logins crept up.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg3t1a",
                    "author": "greylurk",
                    "body": "There are two features that password managers offer that your system doesn't, in my mind:  \n\n\n1) Randomized/non-standard usernames.  I do not use the same username on any two given websites. Using this in combination with an email obfuscator like IronVest, it means that even if my password scheme was compromised, determining which \\*username\\* to test it with on another website is effectively impossible.\n\n2) My password manager is stored in an encrypted file in an encrypted partition on my phone, synced to my computer regularly, and not in the cloud. This effectively gives my password vault 2 factor: I have my phone or my computer, and I know the decryption password.  If I'm ever in a situation where I'm neither near my phone or my computer, and I need to get access to it, then I've got a problem, but so far I haven't come up with any situations like that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg3tx2",
                    "author": "FlashGordonShumway",
                    "body": "If I\u2019m not mistaken, you are much less susceptible to keystroke logging with a pw manager.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg3vyx",
                    "author": "Wank_A_Doodle_Doo",
                    "body": "Your perspective may be somewhat colored by your background. While it\u2019s probably not worth it for you, who is entirely capable of managing it yourself, many people aren\u2019t particularly tech savvy/may have shit memories. While to you it may not be worth due to putting all your eggs in one basket, for someone who can\u2019t for the life of them keep their eggs together, investing in a basket may be a good idea regardless of the risks.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg4apm",
                    "author": "1funnycat",
                    "body": "It doesnt have to awesome, it just has to be better than what people like moi are currently doing (or were doing) which is have the same password for everything with minor variations",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg4g80",
                    "author": "proudbreeder",
                    "body": "Yahoo's primary business is something other than keeping your passwords secure.\n\nLastPass's entire business is doing just that.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg4l5t",
                    "author": "HughJazzKok",
                    "body": "Password managers exist on your phone as well. You don\u2019t need to be on a computer at all.\n\nHow do you deal with a compromised password? Will you then change ALL of your passwords to =144?\n\nYou may have a background in IT but most don\u2019t. Furthermore, even if you do have a background in IT/Development/Security the chances of you implementing your own security properly are lower (hence why we have so many security breaches and exploits in the first place). Security is hard. Even for pros. But I\u2019d trust the pros over myself. \n\nPassword managers make life a lot easier. Autofilling forms, automatically informing if a website has recently been compromised, ensuring I setup 2FA, and easily checking that passwords meet specific length and complexity standards without thinking about it. \n\nWe use \u201csecrets management\u201d as a best practice for deploying servers because it works. That\u2019s a good enough reason use them for personal things. Not to mention just being able to manage everything from one place and not having to think lets you focus on getting things done instead of tinkering around needlessly.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg5036",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Another point about a comment you made\n\n>For example, if you only use the pattern passwords for websites that aren't that important - streaming services, reddit, etc?\n\nAll websites that have any of your personal information on them are \"important\". Any website that has your billing information is \"important\". Related: any website that lets you do/order anything that costs money is \"important\". Any website that has health information is \"important\". Any website that can be used to phish or change your other credentials is \"important\". I could go on. People suck at knowing whether a website is \"important\". \n\nAs a random example that you got wrong: almost all streaming websites have your credit card for renewing periodically, and let you buy a pay-per-view without additional authentication. \n\nThat's a *lot* of websites. And it's not easy to remember which are which. \n\nWhich means people tend to limit their \"special exceptions\" to obvious stuff like banks, and forget about their email provider, which is the number one most important website to protect, because it can change almost all your other passwords.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg5wym",
                    "author": "Ethan-Wakefield",
                    "body": "Manager here. My people will never use the password system you mentioned. They would first write down passwords in MS word files and save them, or email them to themselves, etc. I know you\u2019re saying, but they shouldn\u2019t! It isn\u2019t hard!\n\nIt isn\u2019t hard for YOU. Because you give a shit. Because your used to doing this. My $12/hour data entry specialist doesn\u2019t give two shits. They just want to do their job and do home with the minimum effort and fuss required. \n\nPassword managers may not be perfect but they\u2019re pretty good in the real world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg6u9w",
                    "author": "EinherjerV",
                    "body": "I'll attack your argument by saying pointing out some flaws of password systems. The biggest challenges I've faced in implementing a password system:\n\n\\- How do you cope with password changes? Either after known compromise on a certain website, or one of many websites that require regular password updates? And how do you remember if/how often your password has had to be changed on a certain website?\n\n\\- Length and special character requirements. So many websites have obscure length and character requirements (both in terms of what MUST be included and what CAN'T be included) that I genuinely think there are sets of websites which either entirely or mostly exclude a pattern that satisfies all respective requirements.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg71za",
                    "author": "transientcat",
                    "body": "Ideally you aren't using a cloud based password manager. \n\nBut regardless,  I use mine these days simply because I can't keep track of the passwords because of the restrictions and your system fails once you start to take those into account:\n\n1. Some websites never let you re-use a password or only let you reuse it after a year +\n2. Websites have varying levels of complexity required.\n3. Websites require you to change your password on the regular. \n\nSure I could maybe come up with a password system that takes all these restrictions (and others not listed) into account, but what happens when I'm forced to reset my password because a cookie fucks up and now my system is broken because of the above restrictions. I now have one off passwords across multiple websites...hence why I tend to stick using the Forgot Password link and a Password Manager.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg74ds",
                    "author": "Delmoroth",
                    "body": "Honestly, I don't trust them with Important passwords, but the for the many I use once or twice ever and may or may not come back to over time? Hell use I use a password keeper. Sure you can use a system, until your system doesn't work with the password rules on a given site.... Password rules that they hide unless you are setting a password. As an example, I ran into one that required special characters, but not !. Suddenly one of my main throw away passwords didn't work. To me, it seems very convenient to have one easy login for all of my non-critical logins. I will just remember the info for my bank, investment, and credit card information.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg7cyc",
                    "author": "LividFennel9040",
                    "body": "Man people in IT are so boring",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh2gtj",
                    "author": "LucidLeviathan",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/LividFennel9040 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20LividFennel9040&message=LividFennel9040%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/-/jwg7cyc/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwg7cyc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg7mj5",
                    "author": "Talmadge_Mcgooliger",
                    "body": "My biggest gripe with a password system is that so many sites make you reset the password after a certain amount of time has passed and won't let you reuse an old password.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg82dn",
                    "author": "mdmazReddit",
                    "body": "Given the responses of others and some of your comments, this feels a bit like you are a professional auto mechanic suggesting that everyone should change their own oil vs. taking their car to Oil Change Depot (or whatever) to have it done. Could most people change their own oil, and might there be some benefit to doing so? Sure, but it's just no longer worth the hassle to do so for 99% or car owners.\n\nJust as ALL car owners are 'oil changers,' ALL password users utilize a password manager; the only distinction is whether one chooses to utilize a third-party password manager or chooses to be their own password manager. \n\nI won't attempt to change your view that YOU should use a password manager, just as I wouldn't attempt to convince an auto mechanic that he/she should have their oil changed by someone else. I would, however, suggest to you that - just as most of us are best served by having our oil changed by companies that exist to change oil - third party password managers are the better option for *most* password users. The numerous specific reasons for this have been well presented by other users. \n\nGreat topic!",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg8j5d",
                    "author": "False_Yobioctet",
                    "body": "Your edit to just do math for every website is the worst idea I have heard in a while. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nWhy dont we just remember a random string of pi to our desired password length while we're at it",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg8s4s",
                    "author": "ronin_cse",
                    "body": "Senior Sys Admin here, so maybe not specifically cyber security but I certainly deal with this stuff all the time.\n\nAs far as the single point of failure aspect: Something like 1Pass does get around that possibility by adding in a second layer of encryption that they don't have. Every password vault is encrypted a second time using a master key, so even if an attacker were able to copy their master databases to run attacks against, like what happened to LastPass, they would still need that second key which again is not stored with 1Pass. Additionally, I could require things like a hardware key to access my account, so even if someone got my password and secret key, without the hardware key they still wouldn't be able to get in.\n\nAs far as access: you can put your password manager on your phone and access passwords that way. I don't see many situations where I would need to remember a password on the spot, but also have no access to my phone.\n\nObviously if you were specifically targeted then the attacker could probably get the key from you, but if you are being targeted specifically then really any password solution could be hacked with a sophisticated enough attack.\n\nIssues with your current system: any password system that a human can remember can be reverse engineered, your encrypted hard drive with passwords listed isn't immune to getting hacked, your memory isn't perfect so you can't do something like disable account recovery, your computer system isn't immune to being compromised, random computers you use to log into things aren't immune, all the websites you use aren't immune to being compromised, etc... If one thing gets compromised then that opens other to compromise if they figure out your password system even a little bit, which then opens more to compromise using other more social engineering methods.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwg9mno",
                    "author": "Prior_Accident_713",
                    "body": "Fwiw I am in IT but not in cybersecurity. I tried using the method you describe but gave up after many forced password changes that don't allow historical passwords. Also being unable to accommodate many different accounts for the same website (like Google). I couldn't figure out a way to make an easily remembered system be that flexible without losing the \"easily remembered\" part. Plus, if someone hacked one or two of my accounts and figured out my algorithm, then I would be in deep doggy doo.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgbxeb",
                    "author": "redyellowblue5031",
                    "body": "Before diving in, you probably know these questions are always the balance between convenience and security. I think it\u2019s worth acknowledging a password manager is *not* a perfect solution upfront and I don\u2019t think many would make that argument. \n\nHere is why I think password managers are an appropriate tools in both enterprise and personal use cases:\n\nEnterprise:\n\nIf possible, SSO options are ideal given the litany of tracking, conditional access, and other controls are available. But as I\u2019m sure you know, not all systems play nice with SSO or are dickheads and charge outrageous costs to include it. So, what to do then? You *know* left to their own devices, employees will create weak passwords, store them in excel, Outlook notes, etc.. \n\nThe *better* option is to give them a password manager. It is convenient for them as it functions at minimum just as well as copy pasting from a note, but at best will auto fill passwords for services. Plus, you can then gain more insight into their password strength, how much they\u2019ve reused, or if any of the hashes of their passwords are known to be compromised. \n\nIt\u2019s not perfect, but it\u2019s *better*, again partly because as I\u2019m sure you know it\u2019s a monumental task to educate employees over and over why password management is important. \n\nPersonal:\n\nIt\u2019s essentially the same as enterprise minus most of the admin controls. Although many managers now offer that same feature to evaluate if your passwords have been in a known breach. \n\nYou can easily work in MFA for your vault, giving an additional layer. Plus, for some people they can have several dozen or more personal accounts for all manor of sites. Any system that requires you to *remember* will incentivize you to simplify that system or in a worst case start reusing passwords (credential stuffing, anyone?). \n\nThe scenarios where you need your complex generated passwords when you don\u2019t have access to your device will be very slim and in my opinion don\u2019t outweigh the risk you take on by creating weaker passwords that you need to remember manually.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgdjx4",
                    "author": "Fine_Skyline",
                    "body": "I get your point, but I think far fewer people are capable of using a system like yours than you think. Thinking back to all friends and family I\u2019ve seen in the past couple of months, I\u2019d say two are capable of remembering it all for all accounts. And I can tell you now that both of them would never care enough to do this.\n\nI have never ran into an issue with a password manager where I couldn\u2019t access my password when logging in to someplace. Phone and pc/laptop cover everything",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgfgle",
                    "author": "Dev_Sniper",
                    "body": "Well\u2026 While I do agree that unsecure cloud storage is a bad idea there is a huge issue with systems: they\u2018re kinda predictable.\n\nSo let\u2018s take your example.\n\nFirst we\u2018ll need a standard password that\u2018s safe and not common. So anything personal or common words are a nogo. Let\u2018s take this 20 character string I just came up with:\nBHzs1740,ab6!2p&v9/\nNow let\u2018s assume that people are somehow able to memorize a password like this (and this is basically a must since just numbers / letters or l33tsp34ch isn\u2018t secure). After that we\u2018ll need to add the letters and new numbers. How do we do that? If we always use the last 3 letters in reverse that\u2018s easy to memorize but a hacker would figure it out. And math? Well\u2026 either the number has to stay the same or it has to have a meaning (birthday, event, \u2026) and you can\u2018t use the year you first created an account because I don\u2018t know when I first got a reddit or youtube account. And I won\u2018t remember that for 90+ sites. \nSo while your method is more secure than just using one password for every site it\u2018s still not secure.\n\nA spreadsheet or note on your phone / paper also won\u2018t work since it defeats the purpose of having a password.\n\nSo while I\u2018m really hoping for new ways to authenticate yourself (and there are a few concepts for that) my best advice as someone kn IT is: use Multi Factor authentification whenever you can and group sites according to their potential damage and use a few really secure passwords for a certain category. Yes, if your password gets leaked you\u2018ll need to change it on 20 sites but the other 80 sites are still completely secure since the passwords are completely different. So especially for unimportant stuff like your account for a news website using the same password for ten websites to increase your online banking security by using a completely different password would be worth it. But: especially if your private data (pictures, medical data, banking \u2026) is at risk definitely use MFA. If you can\u2018t use MFA really ask yourself if you need that account. If you don\u2018t just leave it, if you do need it create a unique password and write a hint (that ideally only you understand) on a piece of paper or your phone\u2018s note app",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgfhaa",
                    "author": "curien",
                    "body": "I used a system similar to yours for a *long* time (and still do, sometimes), but I've mostly transitioned to an actual password manager. Here are a few reasons:\n\n1. Shared passwords, like streaming services. Since I share the password with other people, I can't use my private system for those without tipping them off.\n\n2. This is similar to above, but the other way around. I started managing my kids' (as they aged into Internet use) and parents' (as their age means they require assistance) accounts. This means I have lots of passwords that I need to know that *I didn't create or control*, so I *can't* use my system. Additionally, it means that I have several accounts on all the same sites (e.g., medical portals, school websites, my dad and I use the same bank, etc) and my normal system didn't really cope with that well.\n\n3. Websites stupidly trying to enforce complex passwords wreaked havoc on my system. Lots of sites don't let you use passwords that are longer than 10 or 12 chars. Some don't let you use certain characters like + or = or / or $. Some even have weird requirements about character sequences. This is honestly the biggest one. I started having to use variants of my scheme, but the variant would have to be different on different sites, and I just couldn't keep track of it all after a while.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgfjps",
                    "author": "this_is_theone",
                    "body": "> If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety\n\nI don't know who you are that you can do that, but I certainly can't.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwghhhz",
                    "author": "Name-Initial",
                    "body": "For me why i like passwords managers in the frame of your argument comes down to three points-\n\n1.) youve already acknowledged this in another comment, but the main focus of a password management software is to protect and encrypt those passwords. That is the service theyre selling, and given how much of a priority it is, theyre usually pretty damn good at it.\n\n2.) ive got too many accounts to use a manual system without a ton of effort. Probably 100+ between all my finances, insurance, school, publications, entertainment, work accounts, several different emails, etc etc etc. Considering many accounts require regular password changes, and have different requirements (MUST gave special characters vs. CANNOT have special characters are both pretty common, etc.) it would just be a ton of effort and management to have a system that was consistent and reliable. It might be easier for someone like yourself with an it/tech background, but for the average person thats a daunting task.\n\n3.)just like password managers are good at what they do, hackers are also good at what they do. A system like in your example wouldnt be too hard to crack, given they were able to breach just one of your passwords and then brute force/breach one more and once they have two, the system becomes painfully obvious. Designing a truly secure manual system is difficult, and i wouldnt want to base it on something externally linked to your account, like the website name, but that leaves you with only unrelated sources for your password, which are harder to remember.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwghu0f",
                    "author": "Jaaveebee123",
                    "body": "He is about to make more money!!  That\u2019s why he started the business to begin with!! \n\ud83d\udcb0",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgi1vm",
                    "author": "Bridger15",
                    "body": "I've always used a combination of both.  I use a browser based password storage system (which I can always access on my phone if I need to look one up) and then I have several CorrectHorseBatteryStaple-type passwords for various levels of security.  I have a single one I ONLY use on my main email account.  I have another that I only use on financial institutions and other similarly high security websites.  I have a third which I use for most regular websites.  And then I have a 4th which I only use on really shady sites.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgi4pb",
                    "author": "dviper500",
                    "body": "In theory, your system sounds more convenient and secure than a password manager, but in practice I think it would be neither.\n\nThe problem I see with a pattern-based password system like you describe is that it only works if you ALWAYS follow it. The problem is you can't ALWAYS follow it. I used to try similar schemes, but inevitably some website will complain you need capital letters, then another will require special characters, then others will *disallow* special characters... Some will complain your pattern is too short, while still others will say it's too long. Website password requirements don't just vary, they often conflict - now you're stuck trying to remember all the exceptions to the rule rather than just the rule.\n\nBut OK, your passwords are set - now what happens if you have to change one?\n\nSay Reddit gets breached. New password, pattern broken. Another exception to remember.   \nOr do you make a new pattern and remember both (along with which account uses which pattern?). Same with periodic updates - surely someone with your background updates your passwords? Do you make up a new pattern and change everything all at once? Or maybe just pick a new one and update each account as you access it... but then some accounts might not get used much. Then it's \"hmmm, which pattern was *this* one...?\". \n\nOr maybe you don't change them, and you're just counting on nobody noticing the pattern if a few pop up in breach dumps - security through obscurity. Still better than using the *same* password everywhere, and probably enough to stop bots and such, but certainly not robust against a motivated bad actor.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgiv0t",
                    "author": "UserAlreadyNotTaken",
                    "body": "I use the password manager built-in in Firefox and I'm very happy with it. It syncs with Firefox on my android phone and can fill passwords in other apps too.\n\nPortability is solved in the sense that on whatever computer I am I just need to login to Firefox and the passwords are there.\n\nI can't speak for security but in principle it would be enough if Firefox (or whatever service) stored your passwords encrypted and asked for a master password to access it. I don't know if they do it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgkfyx",
                    "author": "Martin_Samuelson",
                    "body": "> Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\n>Learning how you solve the password manager problem when you're not on your computer - at work, a friend's house, a hotel business computer\n\nI use iCloud Keychain. End-to-end encryption, it automatically suggests and saves login credentials on websites, then autfills. And it syncs to my phone, so it's available everywhere I go.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgmo9d",
                    "author": "the_y_of_the_tiger",
                    "body": "If I get my hands on three or more of your passwords I\u2019m absolutely going to be able to reverse engineer your \u201csystem\u201d and access everything you\u2019ve got.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgms10",
                    "author": "jaredearle",
                    "body": "How many passwords can you remember? I have hundreds in 1Password, all pretty much random line noise. \n\nOh, and a couple of hundred in my Work vault are shared, with 2fa. Another work vault has another hundred or so, and when staff leave, they\u2019re immediately cut off from accessing their passwords. \n\nPassword managers are a game-changer for teams.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgn5ik",
                    "author": "darknight9064",
                    "body": "There\u2019s a couple of things that I think really lend themselves to using a password manager. The biggest thing is most average users are either to lazy or do not care about password variety. This means that at least half of the population will likely use the same password or a small variation of the same password in perpetuity. An example would be using Password, password1, or Password1!. We all know these risks but most people simply do not care.\n\nA password manager eliminates that particular issue. Now the passwords that person use could be a huge 10+ string of random characters. Apple has a good system in place for the general consumer. Their system pops up every time you visit a site to encourage you to use a random password when creating one. It also has a save password feature that takes the guess work out of tempering these long character combinations. If you do happen to need a random password and the manager doesn\u2019t auto generate you can go into the generator and make it while also saving it. \nI would imagine that given these two scenarios you\u2019d likely vote the latter given how awful people are at both password creation and management. In your background you\u2019ve seen these problems over and over so any remedy is a plus. \n\nI\u2019m not expert but I\u2019ll drop my ideas on security though. I\u2019m referencing the Apple password manager again in this scenario. While having a single source hold all of your sensitive information is always risky id say it\u2019s still better than the average persons security practice and intelligence. A lot of people will simply save their username and passwords in unsecured word documents just for convenience sake. I\u2019d argue that having that same information stored behind at least a single layer of encryption is better than absolutely nothing that most people have. \n\nWhile I understand your points and can\u2019t invalidate them I think you\u2019re underestimating both the power of these programs and the ignorance of the genera populace.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgnkfs",
                    "author": "FishFollower74",
                    "body": "I work in the software industry so I kind of get how these things work. I use LastPass. I can\u2019t swear that all password programs work the same way but I\u2019m guessing they do. \n\nVery briefly: my passwords are stored in a \u201cvault.\u201d The vault resides on my local machine, and it\u2019s encrypted before the vault contents or updates are sent to the LP servers. What they get is an encrypted version of my password file which they **cannot** read. When passwords are synced across devices, they send the encrypted updates (or the whole vault, IDK) to all devices and it\u2019s decrypted locally. \n\nSo\u2026it\u2019s never in a format they can read. Which means someone accessing their system without authorization couldn\u2019t read my passwords either.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgns5b",
                    "author": "Shoddy-Reply-7217",
                    "body": "I work in digital marketing and have access to not only my own logins to every social platform, but also my clients (each of whom have different emails too, sometimes a shared login, sometimes a personal email, and may have a different system for password conventions too based in current it last staff/corporate rules).\n\nI can't make them use *my* system, and I am certainly not going to write them all down.\n\nI estimate that I have >10 logins/passwords for most major digital and social platforms, many of whom require changes every often too. \n\nMy password manager password is random, only known by me and not using nouns or anything thing silly. It also syncs across my mobile too, when I need to do things out and about. \n\nIts actually a life saver for me.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgo75c",
                    "author": "svtr",
                    "body": "I have 6 highly privileged domain accounts. Admin on I don't even know how many... 800 servers over 5 domains, plus azure, containing 1200 database instances, all with sysadmin privileges.\n\nI have to change the passwords on all these accounts every 6 months. Password length is 20 chars or more, containing special chars numbers lower upper case. In addition we also control the service accounts of these 1200 database instances (yes, one instance one service account).\n\nI could not manage my own accounts without a strongly secured keepass (key file on a share that only I have access to), in addition to a strong master pw. Same model for the service accounts, but with 1200 passwords.\n\nI'd venture to say that sometimes you NEED a password manager.\n\nBefore anyone asks what the fuck I do for a living.... DBA of a major airport\n\n\nI would not be able to",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgqq88",
                    "author": "Imadevilsadvocater",
                    "body": "The only one i know of that is worth it is a literal usb that you plug in and its like an encryption key but physical. Ive been meaning to get one to keep on my keychain but way more convenient than typing 12 characters just plug in and go",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgrhaj",
                    "author": "libra00",
                    "body": "I also worked in Information Security for many years and I am a big fan of password managers so perhaps I can offer some insight into why I think they're better.  \n\n\n>Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nOffline password managers exist - I use KeePass which does not store anything online at all, it just saves all the passwords to an encrypted file on your local drive.  I also back it up to my OneDrive, but since the file is encrypted even if OneDrive gets hacked nobody gets my passwords, and also I can download that file to any device which as a copy of KeePass on it, use the same master password, and have access to all of my passwords.  Even physical access to my PC doesn't get you access to my passwords without a lot of time spent decrypting the database.  As far as convenience, KeePass also features the ability to autotype passwords (which is a big part of why I use it), so I don't even have to go through the UI most of the time.  There are exceptions, such as games like SW: The Old Republic and Mechwarrior Online that lock their launcher so keystrokes can't be injected, but nothing is perfect.  \n\n\n>Learning how you solve the password manager problem when you're not on your computer - at work, a friend's house, a hotel business computer\n\nThere are (unofficial, but it's open source so that doesn't imply shady or illegal) ports of KeePass for Android, iOS, and many others that mean you can access your passwords on any device especially with the aid of something like OneDrive or even just carrying around a thumb drive.  It's definitely not as convenient as something like Bitwarden that has a desktop and mobile app and pulls your passwords from the cloud, but it's a lot more secure.  For situations where you can't install software like on a hotel computer or whatever you can just use your phone to look the password up and type it manually, which is kind of a pain but then convenience often comes at the expense of security.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nAlso a system like you suggest is subject to the fallibility of memory ('wait, was this one CarMonolithTowerPark or CarMonolithTowerDog?', and it gets worse the more passwords you have to remember and the more varied they are), not to mention anyone who successfully cracks one of your passwords will have a much easier time cracking others since they don't need to guess the words that are common between them.  You could certainly come up with a more robust and varied system than in the example I gave above, that would also be harder to remember.  \n\n\nAs such, especially for people like me who have a terrible memory, password managers are a relatively easy and portable way to generate, use, and store a unique very strong password for every application and website.  It's also the only system that makes doing so easy for the average user, most of whom are still using the same or very similar password everywhere which is considerably less secure.  People like you and me who are trained and accustomed to thinking in terms of security can and certainly do come up with alternatives, but even if they were as good as randomly-generated gobbledy-gook (and let's be honest, they're probably not) the average person on the internet doesn't understand the danger, doesn't know what makes a password strong, and doesn't care enough to cook up some complicated system in their head and use it rigorously.  For them, and even for us, password managers are a good solution until we can come up with something better.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgte2g",
                    "author": "Hope_That_Halps_",
                    "body": "> For example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok.\n\nCan you quantify that risk, or are you just saying that it's not absolutely free of risk?\n\n> Beyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nSo password managers might be worth it because not everyone is like you.\n\n> Mostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all. I've asked my peers and there's been pretty consistent agreement, but the online chatter always talks about password managers as if that were the standard across the board and anyone not using them is stupid (I've got reamed for suggesting otherwise on Reddit before), so I have to wonder if I'm missing something.\n\nThe nice thing, at least with Google Chrome, is that you don't have to enter the password at all, it auto completes. To be honest, it's very insecure, like I can get into my wife's accounts just because she accidently auto remembers passwords while logged into my Chrome account, and that's not even the half of it, but at the end of the day, it's a question of what are we protection, from whom, and what are the risks? A lot of services for example send SMS codes to your phone, and that closes that vulneratbility to a large extent.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgtgvv",
                    "author": "Ixrokis",
                    "body": "My job requires me to log in to many different systems, all of which have different password requirements (e.g., length of password, acceptable characters, required characters, etc.) AND I have to change most of them every 30-90 days.  I'm not an IT guy or security specialist.  I know of no way to keep track of all of my passwords other than 1) password vault app or 2) writing them down in a notebook.  If you have a better solution I'd love to hear it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgtyeb",
                    "author": "ProfessionalAd6515",
                    "body": "My password manager stores all my passwords on my computer, not on a server. The passwords stored on my computer is encrypted, and can only be accessed by a password, written down on a piece of paper, and one of the only passwords I remember. What is bad about this?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgx4tu",
                    "author": "CommanderCuntPunt",
                    "body": "I use an old version of 1password and have solved all the issues you mention. This old version syncs through Dropbox and even has a web ui. I made the web ui available through Amazon web services. From any computer I can go to 1pw.mydomain.com and access my password database. All data is decrypted in the browser so it\u2019s fairly safe as long as it\u2019s a trusted device. For me to lose my password data I would have to lose every device I own, and AWS would have to go down. Short of a global catastrophe that\u2019s unlikely. \n\nAs for security, the encryption standards backing a (well built) password manager are for the time being unbreakable. If anyone manages to break them the world would literally be thrown into chaos and my passwords would be low priority.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwgzx8s",
                    "author": "ericoahu",
                    "body": "I know all of the passwords I need to access my hardware in a situation where I have no internet access.\n\nAll of the other passwords I use access online services that require internet access.\n\nOn any device with internet access and a web browser, I can use the web version of my password manager service. \n\nNothing is risk-free, so merely the non-zero chance of risk cannot be a deterrence. It's a matter of comparing the cost and risk of one option with the others. I have decided that my particular password manager offers the best risk/cost/benefit ratio.\n\nMy understanding is that the password manager encrypts my database such that it can only be unlocked with the password I know. If I lost that password, they would not be able to help me, and all of my information would be lost forever. That's more likely than someone hacking into it. \n\nI like your system for remembering passwords, and that's great if those passwords never need to be changed. Some of my accounts require me to change the password regularly. With your pneumonic device, I wouldn't know what I changed it to last year or last month, and I might not be able to remember when I changed it. \n\nI have hundreds of passwords, dozens that I use regularly. A password manager is the best fit for me. I've been using one for over ten years, if I'm not mistaken, and have never had a problem yet.\n\nMeanwhile, on the computers I use most often, my password manager makes accessing my accounts and sites much faster.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh22hx",
                    "author": "DesMay425",
                    "body": "I use Bitwarden (free) and it's on my computer & phone, so I have access to my passwords everywhere I go. My husband also uses Bitwarden so we can share passwords easily- I don't have to text him when I change the Netflix password or wait for him to respond when I want to log into an account that's under his email (this is helpful since he works in 'closed' areas and can't have his phone on him). Those are the two biggest pros for me on a personal level. I also use the password generator feature all the time, it makes me \\*feel\\* like I'm more secure... so, peace of mind? \n\n&#x200B;\n\nI guess another reason I like them is because I don't have the best memory. My old standard password was Abc123 (fake, obviously) and I used it for everything, then I'd start using Abc@123 if a special character was required, then Abc@123JK because it needed to be longer, and so on and so on. But I don't go through all of my accounts and update previous passwords, so I'd sit there and try them all and it's just a  hassle. I guess, your point about picking your own password that's long & unique is a good idea. But what happens when you get to a site and that password doesn't meet the requirements? Now you have to alter it and have more than 1 password to remember, then 2, 3.... That's my two cents.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nYou didn't mention professional use, but I'm going to bring it up because I just recently convinced my organization to sign up for a business password manager. When I started working there \\~6 months ago, I shit you not, the boss pulled out a binder of printed passwords... Because my predecessor was 'old school' and printed EVERYTHING. Most of those passwords didn't even work, so I had to spend hours contacting vendors just so I could reset passwords and figure out logins. It was a nightmare. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nMy main argument was \"What if \\[HR Director\\] wins the lottery tonight and disappears tomorrow? She's a one-person department. Having SOPs in place is great, but not if we can't access those systems to process payroll\". Now, our Executive Director can access passwords in emergency situations. And our passwords are no longer printed out and stuffed into a binder...",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh2mmc",
                    "author": "PlayingTheWrongGame",
                    "body": "> Beyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to.\n\nDoes your own personal password system remind you to rotate each a password after so many days? Does it inform you when your password has gotten compromised in a breach?\n\n> With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nHow often are you trying to access a service when you have literally none of your devices available? You can just look up the password on your phone at the bare minimum.\n\nHell, nothing stops you from printing them out either, if you want to.\n\n> Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nI mean, it depends on your expected threat model.\n\nIf you\u2019re trying to keep your passwords secret against government intelligence agencies and such, then yeah, a password manager service is a bad idea.\n\nBut against more likely and feasible threats, a password manager service is a good idea because it makes proper password security the easier and more maintainable option. \n\n> If you used the last three letters of a website in reverse and add math, every website is easy.\n\nLooking random isn\u2019t enough. Ex. If I pull your passwords for a couple of different sites that had a data breach, and you\u2019re using an easily detectable pattern to generate them, it\u2019s not hard to figure out how to guess your passwords on other sites. \n\nSure, it means I have to buy passwords from several breaches sites and correlate them by username or email, but that\u2019s pretty cheap. \n\nAnd you might argue that you could also rotate to different email accounts for every site, or ask \u201cwhat are the chances that someone actually checks my specific passwords for patterns?\u201d, to which I would reply: having hundreds of different email accounts is annoying, and finding patterns in large data sets has become very trivial with even basic machine learning techniques.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh2y0a",
                    "author": "georgewastaken3",
                    "body": "I take issue with your last point because I think it highlights the main upside that password managers have:\n\nThe passwords are random to the point where you wouldn\u2019t be able to remember them if you tried, and they\u2019re so long that you can\u2019t really brute force them.\n\nYour example is a formula, and therefore if you use a formula similar to the one you proposed, one password being compromised leads to the rest being compromised (given that the attacker notices the pattern).\n\nThe simplest way I can think of getting around the issue of not having connectivity is keeping the password manager on your phone and ensuring that you always have a cache or data connection so that you always have access to your passwords. Alternatively you could treat it as a bitcoin wallet where you save them all to your phone just in case, and ensure that your phone is always with you so that nobody else gets a chance to find your password.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh4q0s",
                    "author": "fzammetti",
                    "body": "If your passwords have a pattern to them then all someone has to do is get one of your passwords and discern the pattern.  Now they have access to every site you're on effectively.\n\nAs I'm sure you're aware, password length is more important than password complexity, and password UNIQUENESS is a firewall beyond that.  In other words: the best security passwords can provide is if you have (a) truly random passwords (b) of a large length (20+ characters) (c) that are strong in terms of code space (i.e., complexity of content), and (d) that are different from site to site.  Not only does that make brute-forcing your passwords pretty much impossible but it means the damage is limited if someone ever does manage it.\n\nA password manager is pretty much the only workable solution to achieve all four points and no pattern you could ever come up with would match the security of all four of those points being in effect.  Oh, it'll be more CONVENIENT probably, but convenience != security in virtually any context, unfortunately.\n\nOf course, the point about a password manager being a central point of failure is valid.  But there's a pretty easy solution to that one that most people seem to not think of: you add a PIN to the end.\n\nIn other words... for site A, my password is ABCD.  For site B, it's EFGH.  That's what gets stored in my password manager, behind a very cryptographically strong master password AND 2FA.  But, those ARE NOT the passwords for those sites.  instead, the password for site A is actually ABCD1234 and EFGH1234 for site B.  Then, you let your password manager fill in the password but NOT automatically submit the form.  You have to then manually add the PIN to the end of the password.  And hey, if you want, you can make the PIN 1234GOO for site A (Google) and 1234YAH for site B (Yahoo).  Now you've got the best of both worlds: that PIN alone provides a great deal of protection, but the added postfix gives you protection against someone also getting your PIN (which SHOULD be impossible if it's only ever in your head).\n\nI think all of that addresses your first bullet point very well.\n\nAs for the second, yeah, I got nothin' to be honest :)  But that's why I use a password manager that has mobile clients and web accessibility too.  It's only ever out of reach if I don't have connectivity, at which point I don't need the password manager, do I? LOL",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh4xdf",
                    "author": "Tobocaj",
                    "body": "You prefaced your background in IT then highlighted how you don\u2019t know shit about information security. I\u2019m guessing you\u2019re a manager? Do you have any idea how unsafe having 1 password for *everything* is?\n\nYes, one long incoherent password that only you could remember is great. The problem is, most IT places that are actually worth a damn make you change your password every few months; and some of them won\u2019t let you use the same password for multiple sites (which they monitor)\n\nI have to remember a handful of passwords just to log in to my company\u2019s different systems(that doesn\u2019t even include my insurance and benefit logins), then I have to remember a handful of passwords to log in to the clients systems\n\nI will agree that password managers are garbage, and begging to be exploited. The next step for security isn\u2019t complex passwords, it\u2019s multi-factor authentication. Then it doesn\u2019t matter what your password is, you can\u2019t log in without access to your phone, or a login key, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh6wnq",
                    "author": "SoCal4247",
                    "body": "I just use the password manager on iOS and it\u2019s a game changer. It remembers all my passwords, suggests passwords and syncs to all my Apple devices. Perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh8rs6",
                    "author": "TheGermanDragon",
                    "body": "I'll do you one further and say all Password security requirements, from 2FA to \"your Zergword must include 16 characters 7 specials 3 capitals no consecutive letters\", are COMPLETE fucking bullshit, only to cover the ass of these companies with dogshit backend security on their servers.\n\n\nThat's why ANYTIME someone gets hacked, it's because there was a password leak. But these companies punish us to  make sure their clueless elderly shareholders remain docile.. and as such, UX sucks even more",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwh9yx9",
                    "author": "giantshortfacedbear",
                    "body": "Not sure if this is called out elsewhere, but there is a use case for password managers in the unlikely (hopefully) even if someone passing, or starts to decline cognitively.\nMy father passed a while ago, his passwords were written down in paper, but with a simple cypher only he knew. As he deteriorated, he was unable to translate the text to passwords (and I think avoided admitting the problem till it was too late). \nIf he had used a password manager and shared the key, it would have saved a lot of pain.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhao19",
                    "author": "Nicobie",
                    "body": "Password managers are great for passwords you don't give a shit about. But for websites that control your money I use different passwords and keep them written down and hidden well.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhb05k",
                    "author": "benasj",
                    "body": "Password mamagers often use zero-knowledge cryptography, meaning, if the database was somehow compromised or the administrator of the password manager wanted to - they could not figure out the actual passwords.\n\nAbout your problem of having to use a password at a friends laptop - I think this is one of the features of a password managers - it prevents you to use your passwords on an untrusted device. Maybe you forget to log out from the untrusted device and now your account is compromised, maybe the system in question stores your login session not securely, maybe your friend accidentally installed spyware or a key logger by trying to torrent a movie, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhbvu0",
                    "author": "slyscamp",
                    "body": "You are missing a couple of things.\n\n1) human stupidity.  Humans are inherently lazy and will adopt bad password practices (common passwords, simple passwords, reused passwords).  Password tools come with random password creators which eliminate this\n\n2) by moving the eggs into a secure basket, you are reducing risk because the attacker would, in addition to access whatever website or application your are using, would need to access both your PC and the password tool.  So the risk goes away down unless the attack is directly on the computer containing the password tool.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhdnsw",
                    "author": "FlyingCashewDog",
                    "body": "> Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nI use Keepass, not an online password manager. I could keep it totally offline if I wanted to, but for convenience I sync it between computers using cloud storage. The file is encrypted with a master password so it wouldn't matter if someone got into my cloud storage and got access to the file.\n\n> Learning how you solve the password manager problem when you're not on your computer - at work, a friend's house, a hotel business computer\n\nIt also syncs to my phone, so I have it everywhere I need it. The only slight annoyance is having to copy out strings of ~20 random characters, but that's a price I pay for security, and it's a very rare occurance anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwheykp",
                    "author": "lejonhjerta",
                    "body": "I use a similar system for my passwords. The only downside i see with this is that is somewhat predictable. If you use the last letters, or first and last, or one the letter next to the first or whatever the system is, it's quite easy for a human to figure it out. So if a password gets leaked in plain text it would be rather easy to hack the rest of your accounts, compared to a random string. In addition, if you care you'd have to change your system if it gets leaked, and then have to remember to change everything or remember where you changed the system.\n\n I've settled on not caring about this because the chance of a personal attack on me if very low. But for me it's definitely a reason to use passwords managers, especially if you are more likely of being directly targeted which would be the case for famous people or people working at companies that has information of interest for people with malicious intent.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhi9gs",
                    "author": "TotalCleanFBC",
                    "body": "I think it is hard to create a system that works for all websites.  For example, some websites have restrictions on which characters you can and cannot use, as well as strict limits on how long or short a password can be.  How do you create one system that works in all cases?\n\nAlso, if you are re-using the \"math\" part of your password on many different sites, that is a security risk.\n\nPassword managers would not suffer from the above problems.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhjy9k",
                    "author": "drew8311",
                    "body": "One problem with your method is needing to change passwords which is sometimes a requirement, your initial password can match some pattern you use but what does it look like after several changes?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhkxw2",
                    "author": "WeddingSquancher",
                    "body": "Your example password system is not very secure when compared to generated passwords from a password manager. A brute force attack would find pattern passwords like yours much quicker than generated passwords.\n\nGenerated passwords don't have sense to them your passwords have patterns. Brute force attacks tend to run through common passwords then to patterns before just completey random combinations. \n\nSomeone can figure out your patterns if they did a targeted attack to you. If someone did a targeted attack to someone using a password manager there is nothing to tie them together across accounts. If your passwords are leaked in just a couple of places then someone could figure out your pattern quite easily. If a generated password is leaked then you gain no link to other accounts. \n\nThere is many companies that have bad practices like for example storing passwords as clear text in thier databases such as the Adobe leak. So your system only takes a few incompetent companies to have database leaks. Then if someone was targeting you they could find your passwords and figure out your pattern. \n\nThe easiest way to get someone using a password manager you'd think would be to get the master password and username. But that wouldn't be enough because if set up properly you'd have multifactor authentication. \n\nPlus when you only have one master password and username you can spend a lot of effort into making that extremely secure. An email account you never use for anything else but this. A very complex password that is only used once. Which is stored in the most secure place. \n\nPassword manager companies rely on having secure storage so they have some of the most secure storage systems for there passwords. I'd rather put my memorised passwords in the trust of a company which depends on being secure than having to put mu memorised passwords all across the Internet increasing the chances of leaks.\n\nIn terms of solving the problem of accessing your password manager on the go, you can have it on your phone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhlsm7",
                    "author": "Kanturaw",
                    "body": "I think a lot of people here are too deep into security to give an actual answer. It\u2019s not password complexity, it\u2019s not password non-repetition, it\u2019s about convenience, with security in mind. \n\nMost people do not want to actually remember any passwords. Most people don\u2019t, unless it\u2019s a repeated one. The main and absolute goal of password managers is to avoid a full crackdown on all your accounts, should any one of the passwords get leaked. The goal is to make logging in easier than typing your password. Hence biometrics allowing unlock of 1Password prefill for example. \n\nThat\u2019s it. The whole point is that intrusion into a third party system, over which neither you or the password manager has control, cannot affect any of your other accounts. Limit the damage. Plaint text passwords used on xyz.com? Only that account is compromised. Not your email inbox, since your password manager created a separate password for this. \n\nSure, as you rightfully mentioned, you can be logged into your password manager on several devices. The key requirements here are twofold: the password to unlock the DB of stored passwords is in itself unique, but also complex. Secondly, 2FA should be required, in addition to decryption keys, to actually use a PW manager on a device. Any good PW manager will disable your local account after 5-10 wrong passwords to prevent local brute force attacks. \n\nBetter PW managers will nudge you to enable 2FA where possible. The best PW managers will also alert you if your passwords are compromised. \n\nThe conclusion is that proper use of a PW manager limits your exposure in case of a breach of a third party. \n\n\nNB:\nIf using a cloud hosted PW manager, does this prevent a breach of your database? Theoretically no. Never say never, someone may guess your recovery key if the DB of the cloud PW manager is breached. This is extremely unlikely, and would take years to brute force. \n\nHowever, 99.99% of attempted attacks are non targeted, meaning they are looking for easy wins and not looking to target one person specifically. Non-repitition of password is the best defense, if they breached one level, they have to work extremely hard to breach the second level.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhp56i",
                    "author": "Funtimes856",
                    "body": "So for context, I\u2019m a penetration tester and ethical hacker. \n\nIf you\u2019re not using a password manager, there\u2019s an almost sure chance that you\u2019re setting weak passwords.\n\nYou can\u2019t set unique and long character (14+) passwords without a password manager. \n\nAlso for your knowledge, password managers store each individuals password store with heavy encryption and a unique key. So even if a password manager database gets compromised, there is a very low chance that an individual store is compromised by the attacker.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhpctj",
                    "author": "Funtimes856",
                    "body": "And if you\u2019re using repeated or weak character length passwords then hackers will get in. It\u2019s incredibly easy to find your previously breached passwords and/or to brute force known accounts.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwhp56i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhrikx",
                    "author": "TA_No987",
                    "body": "People have already addressed a lot of things I value, but one that hasnt been mentioned is the ability to give your spouse/children access to your passwords after you die.\n\nIm a widow and luckily I knew the passcode on my husband's phone and was able to open it and access his texts and email. That let me reset the passwords and login to a bunch of accounts that he primarily handled.\n\nIf he'd changed it the day before and not said anything, I would have been screwed. Now I have a password manager that lets someone I designate request control and if I dont decline it to go to them in a time period I set, they get access.\n\nI get privacy now, but I also know my family will be able to find all the info they need to keep on keepin' on and settle my affairs without going thru probate or providing a death certificate to get control over my accounts.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwht5pa",
                    "author": "SymbolMachine",
                    "body": "I once made myself stop telling others my passwords by making my passwords the grossest or most embarrassing thing i could think of. Now i just go for sheet randomness, because its mathematically better and I learned to stop giving people my passwords. I wouldnt of gave it up under torture just due to the sheer shame of it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwhybwr",
                    "author": "conscious_atoms",
                    "body": "# Problem with your approach\n\nSome sites require you to change passwords periodically. Say you have the following accounts and passwords\n\nabc.com -> cba2*2=4\n\nxyz.net -> zyx2*2=4\n\nSuppose xyz.net wants you to change your password after 6 months and you changed it to zyx2*3=6\n\nNow you have to remember which passwords you\u2019ve changed and which you didn\u2019t. Solution: you have to use a password safe. Better solution: use them from the start.\n\n# Are accessing passwords really an inconvenience?\n\nIts\u2019s totally subjective but I think its not that big a deal. We all have access to mobile phones all the time. So those 1% of the time when we have to enter passwords in friends computer (seriously don\u2019t) just open your password manager app on your phone.\n\n# My own take\n\nIf one have problem trusting some company with personal data, and and fears that some day someone will figure out a way to break through the walls and decrypt our passwords or something, then one should opt for self hosted password managers like GNU pass or keepass. These are bit more hassle to use but worth the risk management.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwi08ga",
                    "author": "nac_nabuc",
                    "body": ">Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nHow old are you and have you ever interacted with the average user that is old-ish?\n\nOf course the perfect individual system is superior, but how many users are able or willing to develop and maintain that system?\n\nMy parents certainly can't or won't. And they are very much average for their age. Even with my peers, you can't expect a perfect individual system.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwi1h4v",
                    "author": "gr3nade",
                    "body": "I have to imagine you've never had to deal with PW related issues for end users because one of the first things I learned after having a role like that is that a password system is far too complex for the average user. It's too complex even for most tech literate users. Most people don't even know what a pass phrase is. They would not be able to manage the usage of a cipher. I would bet money that 99% of people don't even know how to create a password system.\n\nSome of the smartest people I've ever met use the most basic passwords. Some just reuse one or two and use the forgot password button like it's going out of style. And most just write it all down in a god damn notebook or word document.\n\nMore than that, password managers have advantages that many people in this thread have already pointed out which address most security concerns. But I'll do my best to summarize.\n\n1) You can use local only PW managers if you want\n\n2) PW managers allow you to have a way to track all the logins that you have but might have forgotten about\n\n3) Some PW managers allow you to host your own server to run off of\n\n4) Most good PW managers don't actually have a way to decrypt your password. It all hinges on your master PW which only you know. Take lastpass for example. They got hacked and password vaults were stolen. But whether the hackers are able to get into any of those vaults all depends on how strong the main password for each is. And since it's the only password you have to remember, you can make it super complex and never forget it because you use it every day. Mine is literally over 30 characters. So if your password is supercar, you're in trouble. If your password is Flymetothesunandeattheredranger'sdinnerwithaspirallingchimp you're good.\n\nYou might inherently just not trust a company like LastPass to be telling the truth. Maybe they do know your passwords and are just lying. And if that is the case then they are committing fraud on a massive scale for something that doesn't even help their bottom line. But even if you believe that, something like Keepass, stored locally solves that problem. At work, I kept my work passwords on a locally stored Keepass file. That way it wouldn't leave company servers, ever. And it wasn't breaking any company policies.\n\nIf you have a strong password system that works for you. Great, keep using it. But it's not even remotely feasible for the average population.\n\nThe only real knock I can see against a PW manager is if you've got something like keylogger malware on your PC that you're unaware of. But if that is the case then you're fucked anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwi6wi5",
                    "author": "Spiritual_Grand_9604",
                    "body": "At my IT job we have over 200 passwords kept in our vaults and many are shared amongst our team. \n\nPassword managers are the single best way to have strong passwords in that quantity shared amongst others.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwi7pj2",
                    "author": "missed_sla",
                    "body": "I have several hundred users, most of whom are ... well, idiots. I'd trust 1Password or Bitwarden to remember their passwords, even with the inherent risks, over their preferred method of a notepad next to the keyboard. Password managers are a happy medium between a complex system like yours (COUNT?! YOU WANT ME TO DO MATH?!) and just using \"password\" to auth. No, they're not perfect, but they're better than letting my users figure it out on their own. That balance is, so far, the most important part of security in my world. If they can't figure it out, they aren't going to do it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwi9fg5",
                    "author": "agabagadagabobaga",
                    "body": "In order to have the same level of complexity of passwords across the dozens if not hundreds of accounts I have i'd have to sacrifice time for that and honestly I probably just wouldn't. The effort it'd take without a password manager would prevent me from having secure passwords in the first place. My password manager also syncs up across my devices and requires a fingerprint for autofill so for me its more than worth it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwiirxg",
                    "author": "xp19375",
                    "body": "First, what's your threat model?  Is it some casual hacker randomly guessing passwords?  Is it a nation state targeting you specifically?  Someone guessing your password from a hacked password from a different site?  Second, what is \"good enough\" security?\n\nLet's use that last threat model, as I think it's the most reasonable for most people.  Assume someone knows one of your passwords.  With a password manager *and randomly generated passwords*, there's no mutual information between passwords (i.e. knowing one password doesn't help them guess another).  With a password system, there is mutual information, and with your example, might even be easily guessed by a human.  It depends on the entropy in your pattern.  So the probability of your system being compromised is the product of the probability of one of your passwords being compromised and the probability of your pattern being guessed.  The first is the weak link - one website with bad security makes your system less secure.\n\nIn contrast, the only way to get a password from a password manager is to first hack the service (e.g. BitWarden) and then break in to the password database.  Since security is their whole business, I'd imagine this is pretty hard to begin with compared to some skeevy website like linkedin.  The probability of compromise here is the product of the probability of the hacker acquiring your password database file and the probability of them breaking its encryption.  I would guess that both of these probabilities are lower than those in the password system method.\n\nI use BitWarden, for example, and it's architecture, if I remember right, means that my passwords are only ever unencrypted on a local machine, not on their servers.  It also has a web interface and a good Android app so I'm never without access to my vault.  The paid version also does two-factor (although I haven't experimented with that yet).\n\nPassword systems like you mentioned aren't without shortcomings.  For example,\n\n* If you need to change it regularly, it needs to keep up.  Adding the date it was changed or keeping a counter can work, but that gets tiresome to track all the time\n* Some sites have difficult (and frankly, stupid) requirements, like not having four consecutive characters of the same class or not allowing asterisks\n* As others have mentioned, password managers will do domain authentication for you so you are less likely to give a bad actor your password",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwikhn9",
                    "author": "Downtown-Role3456",
                    "body": "With my code you will receive a start bonus of 250! Invite code: NF9QNZUBAU https://web.gopinion.app/login?invite_code=NF9QNZUBAU",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwip7kb",
                    "author": "PoopsieApplenose",
                    "body": "Okay so maybe writing my hundred or so passwords on a giant sticky note is a good idea after all?",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwirihp",
                    "author": "ImNotABot-Yet",
                    "body": "The data in any password manager worth its salt is encrypted at rest. The entire staff and server-side database could be compromised and it wouldn't leak a single password (LastPass had a significant breech a few years back and there was zero intrusion reported). \n\nAnother huge advantage of long random complex unique passwords for every service vs. a password system is that it would only take a breech or intercept of a couple of platforms that stupidly store your password in plain text or allow for code to be injected for a sophisticated hacker to reverse engineer \"your not-that-unqiue system\" and gain entry to ALL of your accounts.\n\nIf a site or account compromised, with a password manager you can just replace the password with a new random one. With \"a system\", I guess you'd have to remember that this site needs a different system? Same goes for any sites that force you to change passwords on a regular interval without resuing old ones. \n\nI think there's a lot of secondary value in the ability to use the password manager database to audit where you have accounts and clean things up over time. Also useful if you suspect a device is compromised (e.g. a keylogger) and you want to systematically \"change all your passwords\".\n\nDisruption is a minor concern, but generally solved with local caching, periodic backup, offline access, or manager like KeePass that relies souly on local storage. \n\nThe convienice of knowing your password to type in\nquickly on a device that isn't yours is very rare in my\nexperience. You can always lookup the password on my phone and manuallykey it in. If you do it a lot for certain accounts you could maybe consider using a slightly shorter generated password (or tell the generator to stick to letters/numbers). You can also opt to change them to something shorter for the duration of a holiday (some managers support an \"autochange password\" feature on popular sites). Not only is the hassle of keying it in manually a bit of a checkpoint for \"do I really trust this device?\" (potentially discouraging lazy/risky behavior), but unless you're using foreign devices daily, I bet the speed of sign in on your \"owned\" devices with a password manager auto-filling vastly outweighs how fast you key them in (regardless of your typing speed).\n\nHope these help! Odds are \"your system\" is 90% more secure than ordinary users anyway, but I think the advantages of a password manager are pretty significant, all on top of the general convienice and ease of accessibility to the layman. \n\n- Signed: A former \"I have my own system\" techie",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwirp1c",
                    "author": "hollowspryte",
                    "body": "Sometimes I let my computer use the password manager for a new account on something I won\u2019t have any need or interest to access on other devices. There\u2019s no way I\u2019m keeping track of a \u201csystem\u201d that exists in my head though.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwiymmc",
                    "author": "SanityInAnarchy",
                    "body": "> ...putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok.\n\nYou're right, it's risky. Here's why I use a password manager anyway:\n\nI am *already* taking those risks by running Chrome. When there's a new version of Chrome, we all install it. We assume Google didn't just ship a [keylogger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keystroke_logging) with it. Or, if they did, we hope that one of the people reverse-engineering every new Chrome version would find it, and we'd hear about it before we installed the evil version. That's a risk we have to take in order to keep patching security vulnerabilities in the browser, because if we *don't* do that, then we'd have to trust every website we visit not to exploit those vulnerabilities -- safer to trust *one* company, instead of trusting *everyone.*\n\nMaybe you use Firefox. All that changes is who you trust. You have to assume Mozilla doesn't just ship a keylogger with Firefox.\n\nI stop short of just using Chrome's password manager *without* a [sync passphrase](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/165139?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=%2Ccreate-a-passphrase). You're right that if my passwords were just sitting in a database at Google, maybe a rogue employee might steal them (or just *peek* at them) and I'd never know. But that's the point of the sync passphrase, or its equivalent (\"master password\" et al) in other password managers -- all my passwords are encrypted before they're sent to Google, with a password that Google doesn't know.\n\nNot all password managers do this, but good ones do -- it's the point of that \"master password\" that you set.\n\n---\n\n> Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nHere's a point that even most people on this thread miss: [Password managers that are built into browsers are resistant to a *bunch* of attacks](https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/passmgrs.html). They're immune to phishing -- you might type your Reddit password into reddlt.com, but your browser knows that password should only work on reddit.com. And they're immune to some clickjacking and similar attacks that could target other password managers directly.\n\n> Learning how you solve the password manager problem when you're not on your computer...\n\nThis has been covered to death elsewhere, but my conclusion here is:\n\nFirst, you probably shouldn't be typing your own passwords into someone else's computer, with rare exceptions. What do you need to look at on their computer that can't wait until you're at home, or can't fit on your own phone?\n\nSecond, If there's one account you want to share (like a Netflix password or whatever), then that's *even more* reason to value a truly random password, instead of one that you have to generate on the fly from some algorithm in your head.\n\nAnd so, the standard solution is to have a password manager that syncs between your own devices, including your phone.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwizisy",
                    "author": "ictree",
                    "body": "Retired from ICT, systems and network admin in a large scientific organisation. I DO NOT use online password managers, I do use a variety of DOBs if the online site insists and i use a number of different email addresses for various tasks subs etc. My secure email is with proton mail. Keepass and keepassxl for Mac and Linux stored locally. Call me paranoid",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwj2xa9",
                    "author": "DeeLowDay",
                    "body": "You have a background in information security, and think using the same password for everything is better than using a manager with an encryption standard like SHA-256? Either this is a joke or your experience/education in information security taught you NOTHING.",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwj37yy",
                    "author": "DeeLowDay",
                    "body": "Are you sure you actually have experience in information security? Lol",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwj6z27",
                    "author": "alexandepz",
                    "body": "I suggest the OP to read [this article](https://passwordbits.com/password-system/).",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwjdf3i",
                    "author": "talkinmyface",
                    "body": "Apple keychain.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwjfore",
                    "author": "TheWurstOfMe",
                    "body": "Systems work until you come up against an insane website that doesn't allow that one special character you use OR they require a change every so often. \n\nOr another case where they get hacked and force you to change your password. \n\nI've also find my system can cause a password to get replicated when the criteria is matched on websites. \n\nAlso, I can securely share my password with someone else using the same manager without that person being able to see the password. Then I can record access. \n\nI have three Google accounts. Using the domain as the prompt or key to the password would cause it to be duplicated. \n\nAnd lastly, if two places get hacked and someone was too actually compare passwords, they might figure out your system.\n\nSo far, a password manager has been very helpful.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwk100n",
                    "author": "IAmRules",
                    "body": "I work for a password manager. There are a ton of compliance requirements. One of this is your information is stored encrypted and zero knowledge architecture. \n\nWhich means evens if your data is stolen, it\u2019s unreadable. \n\nAdding mfa, totp and other form factors increase your safety by order of magnitudes. \n\nThat\u2019s said, if your technical you can do all these things yourself. But this is way too much for most people. \n\nThat being said your passwords shouldn\u2019t be deterministic. \n\nPersonally I use long sentences that are easy to remember but hard to brute force. \n\n\u201cI love pepperoni stuff crust pizza\u201d is a better password than random stings and characters of shorter length. \n\nThe danger isn\u2019t so much someone guessing or brute forcing your password, but you using the password in multiple places and those places being compromised. \n\nThis is where managers offer the most protection.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwkrm9s",
                    "author": "Markenbier",
                    "body": "I don't use password managers either, but regarding your point about password systems I think it's fair to give that one to the password managers. \n\nA truly safe password is a random combination of symbols that's reasonably long. At the point where you start to implement a system that's easy enough to memorize and that works for multiple passwords you start to compromise on the distinctiveness, complexity, unpredictability and length of the password. \n\nTbf, in 99% of cases a computer can't generate truly random strings either, so that may be an angle of attack, but I think it's still safer than these selfmade Systems.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwle13p",
                    "author": "ihateeggssomuch",
                    "body": "I often go more than a year not logging into something and may not even remember if I have an account or what it\u2019s linked to, but 1Password knows.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwmcle1",
                    "author": "Theevildothatido",
                    "body": "It's more secure than having weak, easy to remember passwords. The problem is that most people can't remember difficult to remember passwords.\n\nIt's not more secure at all than simply remembering a 16 character random string. Even a string such as \u201cskuffnukblapperteletraan4\u201d is very easy to remember, and probably a very secure password if you ask me. Certainly, one could train an A.I. to only attempt these kinds of \u201cphonologically plausible\u201d combinations but hashes are so cheap that it probably takes the a.i. more time to exclude \u201cphonologically implausible\u201d candidates than to simply try it against the hash result. Perhaps it works better against passwords hashed with deliberately expensive hashes which also occurs.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwmekkd",
                    "author": "Deepdiver272",
                    "body": "I use one called Cloakey, its actually pretty cool its a bootable door to TOR on a USB Flashdrive with a password manager and encryption tool. I encrypt access to the notepad and just put all my passwords on there, hooks onto my keys so where I go, it is there.\n\nthe TOR thing I just use for dark web type anonymous research but the main thing I use the cloakey for is password management.\n\nI use a lot of passwords so I need it.",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwnnv6c",
                    "author": "kotsumu",
                    "body": "Too much thought is required for your password system. Use something like a prefix or suffix as a common password and a mental password.\n\n123qwertyReddit098 for reddit\n\n123qwertyGoogle098 for google",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwnsj9v",
                    "author": "johnboy43214321",
                    "body": "I agree! A password system so you have different passwords for each account, but it all fits a system you can remember. \n\n\\*However, that's too complicated for a lot of people",
                    "date": "2023-08-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwup8et",
                    "author": "RandomRecorder753",
                    "body": "\\>Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nStandalone offline programs on your device? \n\n\\>Learning how you solve the password manager problem when you're not on your computer - at work, a friend's house, a hotel business computer\n\nencrypted database on a physical token or simply an usb device? If it gets stolen, you should have a backup. If it gets read without permission it should be encrypted and it should not be much of a struggle to carry it close to you. Otherwise have it on the device. \n\nSure if that device itself gets compromised or even someone is really targeting you in real life stealing your stuff, ... but that's the much more unrealistic scenario compared to some database leaks where someone obtains are series of your passwords and figures out your system and applies it elsewhere.\n\nAlso password managers are particularly neat if you one to create one time passwords for accounts that are supposed to be throwaways or whatnot. You don't have to expend much brain power to craft a secure password and still have a reasonably save one provided for you and if it gets leaked... doesn't matter there's no information lost with that. Whereas if your password system is exposed that's kind of annoying.\n\nIt's certainly correct that you produce a single point of failure, but at least that is behind your firewall.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwz6oms",
                    "author": "GeoffW1",
                    "body": "> Reddit -> Tid12*12=144\n\n> Yahoo -> Ooh12*12=144\n\nThese kinds of passwords, though they look complicated, would be hard for a human to guess, and are not overly short ... are still *relatively* low in entropy compared to something generated by a password manager.  A sophisticated adversary mounting an offline attack would have a reasonable chance of guessing them.  Whether that's any concern for your Reddit password or not I'm not sure.",
                    "date": "2023-08-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15sq1vm",
                    "author": "suddenly_ponies",
                    "body": "I have a background in information security, system administration, IT risk management, and so on. I say that not as some kind of brag, but to set the tone for this conversation and to express that I have really thought this through.\n\nFor example, putting all your passwords into a service that can now be hacked, disrupted, or is subject to access by its employees is actually risky and I'm not sure why people think it's ok. \n\nBeyond that, what about the convenience factor? If I use a strong password system (of my own design) that I can remember easily, but is long, unique, and has solid variety, I can be on my computer, any number of laptops, my phone, my wife's computer, friends' computers, or anywhere else and still be able to log in if I want to. With a password system, I don't have my own passwords and I'm stuck anywhere that password tool isn't available.\n\nMostly, a good individual password pattern system seems sufficient. CorrectHorseBatteryStaple after all.\n\n&#x200B;",
                    "date": "2023-08-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Password manager tools and systems aren't actually worth it.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15sq1vm/cmv_password_manager_tools_and_systems_arent/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k7uf68w",
                    "author": "johan456789",
                    "body": "I wrote a blog post a while ago in response to this and didn't post it until now: https://tsunghanyu.com/posts/why-password-managers-are-both-more-convenient-and-secure/\n\nHere's the summary:\n\n> Discovering that password managers are more effective, secure, and easy to use than I believe.\n\nThe password pattern system you use is also a single point of failure because of the shared base passphrase. Password managers provide stronger security, more convenience through auto-fill, easier management, and better damage control in case of a website breach.\n\n> Learning how you solve the password manager problem when you\u2019re not on your computer - at work, a friend\u2019s house, a hotel business computer\n\nYou can access your password manager vault from the mobile app.",
                    "date": "2023-11-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15sq1vm"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15ufdh2",
                "author": "Nepene",
                "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwp4vxi",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": ">Larian Studios is fairly small\n\n450 employees. That's not small. At best that is medium sized but more aptly that's a large studio.\n\nWe need to remember that big houses like Blizzard and Square Enix are actually half dozen studios just flying under one banner. Their organization is slip into about Larian size studios each working on their own projects just like Larian worked on their own project.",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwp5fbc",
                "author": "Nepene",
                "body": "Sure, small was probably the wrong word. !delta for that, since medium would better describe it. \n\n9000 people worked on Diablo 4 say, which is more what I would see as large.",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwp4vxi"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwp5gdm",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Z7-852 ([188\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Z7-852)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwp5fbc"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp4yel",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "What are the lessons or \"standards\" that other studios should learn or follow?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp6161",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Players appreciate a wide variety of reactions to classes and abilities and races. To improve immersion try to record more voice lines to cover how the world sees you and your party.\n\nMicrotransactions are immensely unpopular and the more prominent they are made the more unhappy people get. \n\nScarce combat with more meaning is more reliably meaningful than lots of trash mobs. \n\nDon\u2019t make games too sanitised. Sex with a bear, kicking a squirrel, and other similar controversial acts won a lot of love. Try to cater more to people\u2019s impulsive whims.\n\nA wide variety of abilities which let you interact with the world is very popular. Try to make a larger toolset for players to interact with the world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp4yel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp5o3f",
                    "author": "ikati4",
                    "body": "I think people don't understand how big corporations work.They won't look at the success of BG3 and say \"hey we should learn from this\".They already have their formula for making money from their products because that's what gaming is when shareholders dip their nails in. Money making products. There were studios in the past that were the golden standard and when bought by a big corporation the dip in quality felt right in the next game(biowere is the perfect example). Even larian studios would fall for this if a big company buys them.\n\nSure BG3 is a great game and you can see that the devs cared for the game. But even in these big companies the devs still care.But they will never have the creative freedom to do what they like due to upper management. So don't expect from a big company to learn from the success of BG3",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp6i6x",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve often seen mechanics and stories and styles of games copied in large studios , so I think they do copy formulas.\n\nThey may make them a bit more soulless, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s fair to say that studios don\u2019t copy at all.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp5o3f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp65a5",
                    "author": "musuperjr585",
                    "body": "While I understand why you would feel this way, I have a few observations about your post. \n\nLarian Studios is a fairly large studio, with approximately 450+ employees that is a fairly large compared to other studios who have less than 50 people. They are not on the same level of employment as a company like Blizzard but they don't operate the same either.\n\nFurthermore you mention \"standards\" and \"lessons\" but don't mention anything tangible, that could be used as a standard or lesson. \n\nBaldur's Gate 3 is a great game and it deserves the recognition and praise but to imply that the game should be the standard for RPGs is a bit extreme. \n\nMany gamers are tired of the copy/paste strategy from game companies. Baldur's Gate is a great game , but many gamers would grow tired of every RPG was simply a reskined BG3.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp6x7u",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "I gave a delta elsewhere for size comparisons. \n\nI mentioned in another comment some ideas. More class and race interaction with the world, less microtransactions, more meaningful enemies.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp65a5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp7isj",
                    "author": "Sparkling_Lettuce",
                    "body": "What standards do you mean? \nI, for instance, don't like Larian's writing and storytelling. That's just not my cup of tea, I disliked Divinity 2 story and plot, including characters. Almost the same can be said for bg3, their storytelling is just not touching my strings. I have greatly enjoyed other aspects, and I congratulate the studio with their success. But for me, Larians do good gameplay and great visuals, but that's not what I would call rpg standard - I play rpgs for stories, not gameplay. \n\nThe good thing in game dev is that there's something for everyone. If we press small indie studios into follow standards (and Larians had two commercially successful games before, so they are not small), we will never see gemstones. \nI would hate it if for example standards for graphics prevented great indie-rpgs from being created. \nGreat prgs can fail at what is Larians' strong side and still be great and unique.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpa8xb",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "I did say mostly that big studios should follow it, not that smaller ones should be obliged to. \n\nI was more talking about stuff that takes some people like broad character and race dialogue options or controversial content like kicking the squirrel.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp7isj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpawia",
                    "author": "BlackRedHerring",
                    "body": "As long as mediocre titles make a lot of money with microtransactions or just with short development cycles no big company would \"learn\" from them.\n\nMost developers know what a good game needs / what people want. This has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with incentives.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpbu9x",
                    "author": "Parson1616",
                    "body": "Lol tired of seeing this , I\u2019m sure BG3 is a fine game, but it\u2019s not some paradigm shifting software lol. It\u2019s a DND , turned based game lol cmon now. \n\nThese have really limited appeal do to how the core gameplay is structured. \n\nSomething like starfield is gonna be much more commercially successful.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpuvc7",
                    "author": "SomeRandomme",
                    "body": "\"Starfield is Fallout 4 in space lol cmon now.\"\n\nTurns out if you describe everything at the most reductive level possible it sounds shit.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwpbu9x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpcfx5",
                    "author": "Donny-Bandish",
                    "body": "i honestly think the praise this game has received is incredibly overblown and largely the result of there being so few good crpgs of late. it\u2019s a great game, but some people treat it as a revolutionary, genre-defining entry, something akin to red dead redemption 2. that couldn\u2019t be further from the truth. it\u2019s an excellent sequel to a top 5 rpg - that\u2019s it. \n\nkingdom come deliverance was more groundbreaking.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpjwja",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "I think an interesting though experimental is to ask do you think the next game will meet the standard you believe they have set and if it doesn't do you believe people won't act like they've lost their touch and some other nonsense.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwplzgs",
                    "author": "Dennis_enzo",
                    "body": "I like BG3, but I wouldn't say that now every RPG needs to be a BG3 clone. An RPG with a linear story and set characters can be just as good in its own right.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpowyq",
                    "author": "Sh4rtemis",
                    "body": "It's not that BG3 will save us, it's just that a huge portion of gamers are fucking idiots and buy microtransactions.\n\nMy best friend has probably spent $1500 across Apex Legends and Halo Infinite.\n\nPeople that are stupid with money are what is giving rise to the bullshit live Service.\n\nIt's one thing to be wealthy but I think most that spend far more than $70 on mtx for a game are not wealthy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpptbh",
                    "author": "bjarni19",
                    "body": "Baldurs gate 3 is a decent game, but in my run it sort of collapsed into a buggy mess in the third act, with several very bugged boss fights and some characters outright despawning and locking off quests. And while this is more of a subjective matter I found the plot completely interesting. I don't really see this as a big leap forward compared to other big RPGs.\n\nNot to mention it was actually released 3 years ago in an extremely buggy state for full price, and the game was fixed up over those three years of early access.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpqykz",
                    "author": "jdvhunt",
                    "body": "The standard was set in the 90s and 00's before the accountants took over all the large publishers, nothing will change other than Larian will likely now employ a bunch of accountants now they've made money and turn into EA in a few years",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpts4e",
                    "author": "midnight_rebirth",
                    "body": "They literally had their game in early access for years. That.should not be a standard. Paying to be a beta tester is in direct opposition to consumer goodwill.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwuqekc",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "If they make it clear that the Early Acess version is not polished and do not mislead people about the release date, then what harm is done to customers?",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwpts4e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpv6b0",
                    "author": "Dramatic_Reality_531",
                    "body": "Nobody makes good games for free. Models that put money over player happiness will always win out.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpw28t",
                    "author": "Physmatik",
                    "body": "What do you mean by \"should\"? That it would be nice or that they have to?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq6ino",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "That they want to earn money, like copying and to complete their goal should do it",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwpw28t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpxdct",
                    "author": "Helicase21",
                    "body": "The problem is that other studios don't have the resources or background that Larian did. They don't have the financial freedom to take a really long time to do things right. They don't have multiple games' worth of time building up institutional expertise in writing, level design, workflow, etc to build exactly this kind of game. \n\nSo while Larian may not have \"anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios\", those resources they do have are *incredibly tightly focused*.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq5jy3",
                    "author": "Zippy0723",
                    "body": "What is the point of the CMV? Respectfully, this post is just \"game is good! Other games should be good too\"! You offer zero actual \"examples\" that other people in the industry should follow.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq5nx2",
                    "author": "the-city-moved-to-me",
                    "body": "> It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good.\n\nCould we see some source/context for this claim? Seems like kind of a strawman tbh. \n\nWho exactly is saying that, and what are their full arguments?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq85i3",
                    "author": "darthmonks",
                    "body": "Other comments have already talked about mechanics of the game and the developer size so I'm not going to here. Instead I'm going to say that Baldur's Gate 3 isn't that unique for being a single player game with no microtransactions. Off the top of my head: this year alone we've had Hogwarts Legacy, Jedi: Survivor, Tears of The Kingdom, and Baldur's Gate 3 release and they're all single player games with no microtransactions. We've also got Starfield coming out in a couple of weeks. There's plenty of single player games with no microtransactions out there. \n\nFor the point about developers saying it shouldn't set a standard: that's been taken out of context in it's reporting. They weren't saying that the game itself shouldn't set a standard. They were talking about the context of it's development. Baldur's Gate 3 took 7 years to develop, spent 3 years in early access, and Larian didn't have a publisher breathing down their neck. \n\nLarian was in a very unique situation to be able to make Baldur's Gate 3 the way they did. Most games have a publisher that wants them released in a reasonable timeline because they want to make a profit fairly quickly after their investment. It's not unreasonable for the publisher to want to make a profit on the thing they're financing but it does mean that most games can't spend 7 years in development. \n\nAlso, it would suck as a player if every game spent 7 years in development. There are already some major developers that have spent years to make a game \u2014 e.g. GTA 6, Starfield (and Elder Scrolls 6 after it). Do you really want to spend 7 years waiting for the next game from every developer?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqyhdy",
                    "author": "Kiram",
                    "body": "I'll also add that in addition to not working with a publisher, Larian had a few other HUGE advantages that aren't necessarily easily replicatable for other big games. And a lot of those advantages overlap to create not quite a perfect storm, but as close to one as you please.\n\nFirst, they had an absolutely huge amount of buy-in for their early access. The game had already sold over a million copies before it was released. The game was in early access for nearly 3 years. Most games that end up successful average about a year in early access. And that sort of early access release schedule isn't something I think a lot of people want to see become the norm for AAA releases.\n\nSecond, the game is in a genre and subgenre where the standard for games is actually quite a lot of content. BG3 has 174 hours of cinematics. Most games do not have 174 hours worth of content, period. And that's not a bad thing. Most genres and subgenres don't benefit from that sort of scale. But it meant that BG3 could put out 1/3rd of their game on early access, and have it feel like a full experience, while still holding back enough content that players wouldn't complete the full game and then drop it. \n\nThird, the game was made with very mature technology, by a team experienced in this exact type of game, with a pre-made mature ruleset. Larian didn't have to create a brand-new engine or suite of tools for creating their content. They didn't have to train a bunch of people in how to use those tools. They didn't have to design a new RPG system. Their team could, in a sense, hit the ground running on content. \n\nFourth, this is a licensed product, and a sequel to one of the most beloved series in it's genre. While it's pretty clear that we have a lot of people who have never played Baldur's Gate who are jumping in at 3, it's hard to ignore that the Baldur's Gate games were *the* gold standard for CRPGs. The series had a lot of cultural cache, even if there was a large segment of players that weren't willing to go back and play the originals. It's also a branded D&D game! And D&D has been going through a bit of a cultural moment in the past few years.\n\n-------\n\nAll of that adds up to BG3 being the amazing game it is, but these are also things we cannot expect to be standard across the industry. And I think that in a lot of ways, that's good. BG3 is really an amazing game, and I'm glad it exists, but I don't want every game to be BG3.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwq85i3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq862t",
                    "author": "transientcat",
                    "body": "I'd be curious to know what other games you thought set a new standard.\n\nBG3 from everything I have seen is a very good update to an existing franchise but hardly ground breaking in any sense. A lot of what you have described in other comments (lack of MTX, In-Game consequences for actions/choices, random shit to do) isn't new or even a new packaging of those features. \n\nOther people have indicated the game itself has your bog standard technical bugs on release.  \n\nIt seems unclear as to why it's setting this standard.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwunaam",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "It seems BG3 is getting most of its praise because it has a huge amount of quality gameplay and narrative content, allows you to make many different decisions with different outcomes, has a presentation that on a technical level is very impressive for a game of its genre, and works ok for most people.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwq862t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqcbmn",
                    "author": "Xystem4",
                    "body": "Not trying to change your mind on this, just wanted to say that honestly? Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 is the buggiest game I\u2019ve ever played, and I\u2019m very disappointed nobody is talking about it. \n\nI typically don\u2019t play AAA games, especially right on release. So I\u2019m aware this is far from the worst example (looking at you, Cyberpunk). But the game right off the bat has such game breaking bugs, and general sloppiness. I\u2019ve had to restart 3 campaigns in a row because the save file got corrupted, and wouldn\u2019t let me continue. When playing with friends, random enemies will be invisible for some of us but not others. Dialogue sometimes simply won\u2019t show up. Friends get stuck forever in cutscenes that haven\u2019t actually started playing, and need to quit and rejoin multiple times. \n\nI\u2019m sure this is better than a lot of AAA releases right when they come out, but I would sure hope that *this* isn\u2019t what we resign ourselves to as a gleaming standard. (And yes, I agree, when it\u2019s *actually working* the game is fantastic)",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqdqdx",
                    "author": "NinjaExpansion",
                    "body": "I just bought this for $AUD 90 and it\u2019s the best gaming purchase I\u2019ve ever made. No regrets and would support future Larian releases.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqhznn",
                    "author": "LucidLeviathan",
                    "body": "I would suggest that the reason that Baldur's Gate 3 was able to put together such an immersive experience was because of the D&D IP. They had access to over 50 years' worth of worldbuilding. Hundreds of books from dozens of authors contributed to the setting that Baldur's Gate is set in, and thus the designers did not have to do that part themselves. However, not all developers will have access to such an extensive IP. It is unreasonable to expect a developer to design such a detailed world from scratch otherwise.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqk8i2",
                    "author": "Not_a_tasty_fish",
                    "body": "The major developers/publishers people imagine when the phrase \"AAA Game\" is invoked are all publicly traded on the stock market. They need consistent revenue and growth in order to satisfy their shareholders and not tank the company's share price.  As shitty as they are, Wall Street has figured out that microtransactions make a LOT of money, so removing them completely becomes near unthinkable. A CEO that announces that their next game won't come out for 6 years would be replaced by a board of directors almost instantly, because that level of polish and quality has diminishing returns whereas they could just spend that extra development budget on marketing and break even that way.   \n\n\nYou can argue that this is a bad thing and that it won't lead to good games, but you're sort of missing the bigger picture that these companies aren't interested in making games that people love. Maybe the developers are, but the higher-ups and the business side folks that actually control what the developers get to work on simply aren't interested in that. Instead, they have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible, which means shipping titles more frequently and leveraged to take as much cash as they can get.   \n\n\nIf you want to avoid this sort of behavior, you need to stop buying games from companies that are publicly traded. Assuming that this can set a standard going forward however is hopelessly na\u00efve, as a good game will never win over bigger returns for investors.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqkn36",
                    "author": "ToranjaNuclear",
                    "body": "Have you considered that not everyone wants every RPG to be like Baldur's Gate?\n\nIf you go to r/baldursgate especially, you'll find out that a lot of fans of the old games aren't really fond of the new one.\n\nAs much as I'd like some studios to follow on the steps of Baldur's Gate, I certainly do not expect, nor want, them all to do so. Or else we'll have another 10 years full of games that look way too much like Dark Souls.\n\nThere are many other games they could draw inspiration from. Disco Elysium, Undertale, Kingdom Come, CDProjekt games etc. I really don't hope that Baldur's Gate alone should set a new standard for the industry.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqkohw",
                    "author": "malec2b",
                    "body": "So I understand the sentiment behind this view.  AAA games have for a while have become increasingly bloated, shallow, buggy, and bogged down with micro-transactions and subscriptions.  And then here comes Larian with a massive cRPG that not only massive and systems-driven, but also polished and made with high production values.  It's the whole package.  Why can't \\*every\\* game be like this?  Why can't we demand better from AAA studios when they've got so much money to throw at games?  Where's that money going?\n\nThe fundamental problem with this assertion is that it actually buys into and re-enforces the fundamental lie underpinning the AAA industry, which is that all it takes to make a good game is throwing time and money at it.  Sure, time and money help, but only when they are backing up skill, creativity, personal investment in a project, and, above all, clear direction and vision.\n\nLet's take a look at Larian Studios and see \\*why\\* they are able to pull something like Baldur's Gate 3 off.  \n\nLarian Studios has been releasing RPGs since the early 2000s, beginning with the Diablo-inspired Action-RPGs of Divine Divinity and Divinity II.  They were then able to run a successful kickstarter (which in turn allowed them to secure additional funding) for an old-school Baldur's Gate-inspired cRPG in the form of Divinity: Original Sin, which was successful enough for them to make an even bigger sequel.  After 2 decades of making RPGs, and \\~5 years specifically making Infinity Engine-style isometric cRPGs, they were given the license and funding to make Baldur's Gate III.  \n\nLarian then spent roughly 3 years developing Baldur's Gate III to get it into an Early Access release, and then, crucially, another 3 years \\*in early access\\*.  It cannot be understated the degree to which the game's stability and relative lack of bugs at launch is due to the fact that the game was getting public beta-testing for 3 whole years that was not just free but payed for by the audience.\n\nSo, to recap, Baldur's Gate 3 is the end of a story that involves 20 years of industry experience in the RPG genre, \\~10 years of making specifically Baldur's Gate style cRPGs, 6 of those years making Baldur's Gate 3 itself, and 3 years of early access. \n\nIt is not a problem you can throw money at.  The AAA industry is, from the ground up, just not set up to make games like this, no matter how much they overwork their developers (and, trust me, they overwork their developers).\n\nBut, you might say: well, even with all that, it couldn't hurt for AAA developers to start doing 6-year development cycles and putting more even more resources behind their games.  Even if they lack Larian's experience it'll surely lead to better games.\n\nBut the thing you have to keep in mind is that AAA companies are fundamentally risk-averse.  The longer the development cycle is, and the larger the budget, the fewer total games a company can make, and the more burden there is on each individual game to be a financial success.  This both means that companies are more likely to play it safe (and a massive, systems-driven old-school cRPG is not \"playing it safe.\"  It is a gamble that payed off), and also means that these companies are incentivized to do everything they can to extract as much money as they can from their games.  That means micro-transactions, season passes, Games As A Service, etc...  All the things that Baldur's Gate 3 is a breath of fresh air from.\n\nMaking a game like Baldur's Gate 3 takes decades of experience, and a clear vision and understanding of the sort of game you're trying to make, inside and out.\n\nSo what are you to do as a lowly consumer do if you want to see more games like Baldur's Gate 3 in the world?\n\nThis is going to sound counter-intuitive, but hear me out: Lower your standards.  Or, at least, lower your standards in specific areas regarding production value, while maintaining high standards for design, complexity, creativity, etc...  Have lower standards for graphics, voice acting, music, and focus primarily on fundamentals.  Baldur's Gate 3 would not exist if people hadn't supported Larian when they were making (comparatively) lower budget games like Divinity: Original Sin.  They wouldn't have had a chance to make Divinity: Original Sin if people hadn't bought Divine Divinity back in the early 2000s.  \n\nSimply \"having higher standards\" wouldn't have produced Baldur's Gate 3, it would have killed the studio that would eventually make it in the cradle.\n\nGive developers who are making the sort of games you want to see, even if the production values aren't there, a chance.  If enough people support them, the production values will come.  It's easier for a studio with a deep understanding of the fundamentals access to more resources than it is to give a studio with access to resources a deep understanding of the fundamentals.\n\nThere are a ton of low-to-medium budget cRPGs out there by studios doing great work with limited resources.  Same for any other niche genre that the AAA industry won't touch.  If you want a big budget version of those games, don't rely on the AAA industry to give it to you; support the people currently doing the work and hope that the budget will eventually come to them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr9qhf",
                    "author": "csl110",
                    "body": "This is actually the best reply here.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwqkohw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqkq2m",
                    "author": "ThatNoGoodGoose",
                    "body": "Larian have resources that smaller studios don\u2019t and have been able to specialize in ways that very few large studios can afford to. They\u2019re special in being a one-game studio with a budget. In recognizing how amazing Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 is, we should also recognize it wasn\u2019t made under \u201cnormal\u201d game development conditions. It\u2019s not easy to copy.\n\n  \nIf you wanted to copy Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 and have the same level of options and reactivity then the only way to do it is time, talent and specialized resources. It\u2019s not advancements in technology or (just) money. You\u2019d need to change your development conditions. You may well need years to develop the toolset and build/train the team with the very specific experience needed to even begin a project like this, and years more to see it to completion.\n\n  \nThat\u2019s not to say other studios can\u2019t learn from BG3 or that we should expect bad games from other studios. But right now, most other studios don\u2019t actually have the resources to do everything Larian did well. And until they do, BG3 will be exceptional rather than a standard.  \n\u00a0  \nFor some of the ways BG3\u2019s game development was exceptional, it was:  \n\n\n* In development for 6 years with a team of more than 400 people, including 3 years of successful Early Access and all the feedback, funding and bug fixing that comes with that.  \n\n* Made with the benefit of every tool, workflow and lesson Larian had gained from developing other massive RPGs before this. Their team have been honing their expertise in this one *specific* area since 2002.  \n\n* Made with an engine custom built for this specific game (a modified version of Divinity Original Sin 2\u2019s engine). Other studios often have to work within the constraints of game engines and tools not specifically made for the game in question \u2013 making it difficult and expensive to create systems tailored exactly to that one game\u2019s needs. (E.G. Ubisoft using the same engine for various action-roleplaying Assassin\u2019s Creed games, online multiplayer tactical shooter Rainbow Six and sports game Riders Republic.)  \n\n* A massive risk for Larian. If this one game had been a commercial failure, Larian studio would most likely not have survived.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqtf41",
                    "author": "Stokkolm",
                    "body": "I would call 174 hours of cinematics and a script 2 million words long (Witcher 3 had 450k) way excessive.\n\nCD Projekt RED made Witcher 3 which was set a high bar for AAA RPGs, and yet same team failed next time with Cyberpunk because it was too big and ambitious even for them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwulx3j",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "Did Larian say they were on the verge of bankruptcy right before Baldur's Gate 3 came out, either in 2020 or 2023?",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwqtf41"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqv83m",
                    "author": "zero_z77",
                    "body": "I think the free market is the free market, and people should buy the games that they want to play. If BG3 is *your* standard, that's fine, don't buy anything that doesn't live up to that standard. But don't expect every other player to adhere to your standards. If people wanna buy crappy AAA titles, then that's their buisness. AAA developers are going to stick to whatever \"standard\" they think will make them the most money. If that's BG3, then so be it, if it's not, then there's plenty of other games to play.\n\nI have very high standards for the games i play, which is why i don't frequently buy AAA titles. They just don't hold my interest anymore. I need deep and complex gameplay that gives me the freedom to play my way without making me open my wallet every 5 minutes, and i could care less how new, pretty, or popular it is.\n\nNo one has to buy or play brand new AAA titles, there are plenty of small time developers out there making good games, and plenty of old titles that are still fun and enjoyable if you're willing to see past their age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr03qg",
                    "author": "KamikazeArchon",
                    "body": "There's a lot of commentary specific to the gaming industry, but I think there's a much more fundamental issue to consider. Let's assume for the purposes of this comment that BG3 is indeed exceptional and far above the current norm.\n\nIn *any* context, an exceptional outlier *cannot* become the standard. That is the nature of outliers.\n\nIt doesn't make sense to say Usain Bolt is the standard for runners, or that van Gogh is the standard for painters, etc.\n\nIf creating games was a perfectly reproducible process, sure - but it's not. There is no Make BG3 Machine that can be mass-produced. A great deal of it is still a simple matter of chance; ranging from chance in the sense of story/gameplay ideas aligning with customer desires, to chance in the sense of people being born with talent and potential in particular areas, to chance in the sense of financial circumstances aligning.\n\nIn any such field where chance matters (which is almost all of them) you'll have a natural distribution of outcomes, with most things being average and a few things being particularly good or bad.\n\nDemanding that the average shift up to match the good extremes is not realistic. *If* there is a concrete reproducible thing that can be extracted and applied to future processes, sure, that's useful - but *proving* that a particular thing is concretely reproducible is difficult. A single data point is hard to extrapolate from, and intuition is rarely a good basis - e.g. you may like the many dialogues in BG3, but just throwing more voice lines at another game won't necessarily make it amazing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr3hw3",
                    "author": "Captain-Griffen",
                    "body": "> Larian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios.\n\nMore employees than Bethesda Game Studios and they have spent more time on it than Starfield.\n\nThey had time and resources that AAA game studios wish they had.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwulhx0",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": ">They had time and resources that AAA game studios wish they had.\n\nI'm not sure that's the case.  In the FTC court case, Sony stated that The Last of Us Part 2 took 70 months to make and cost $212M and Horizon: Forbidden West took 5 years to make cost $220M. \n\nWe probably won't ever get Larian's official financial data but it is unreasonable to assume that they had a much bigger development budget, time, or resources than many AAA studios who often have the backing of a big publisher  and a larger potential funding pool for game development.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwr3hw3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr5l87",
                    "author": "natelion445",
                    "body": "I will actually contend with the CMV instead of just argue about gaming. Developers say that BG3 shouldn't be the standard for possibly reasons that are not sinister: \n\nBG3 is a single or cooperative \"one and done\" story type game. I would wager most of the developers that are saying these things are developers of games that are more multiplayer massive. Either MMOs or MMO-lites. It is far more difficult to release a fully polished and perfect game when there are things like player driven economies, duping, the need for \"end-game loops\". MMOs, for example, have to keep the concurrent player base high enough that game mechanics like trade, grouping, competition, etc can flourish. Frankly, there has to be some level of \"addictive\" aspects to games to keep people hooked for months or years so that new players look around and see these aspirational veterans. \n\nLive-service games are infinitely harder to get right than RPGs and almost impossible to get right on launch day. They are also incredibly expensive to maintain. Between continued development cost and server maintenance, some games require consistent cash flows to operate, while a game like BG3 can survive off of release revenue and DLC costs. We want live service games, so expecting them to have a similar monetization model as a stand alone RPG is a bad expectation.\n\nClass customization can be done in a solo/small group RPG like this because one class or mechanic can be OP without ruining the game. If you want to RP with a less optimized build in BG3, turn on easy or medium mode and go ahead. If you want to RP in an MMO, you actually lose out on content because you can't run groups or succeed in PvP with meme RP builds. So other games have to be meticulously balanced to such a degree that having tons and tons of class combinations becomes a problem more than a benefit.\n\nBG3 was able to utilize a known universe (DnD) with fleshed out lore, settings, character archetypes. They were also able to use the combat mechanics of DnD and previous games like DOS2. It gets away with being kind of campy because it is tapping into a beloved mythos. Other games have to start from scratch to create an entire new world with good internal logic, interesting characters and how the fit in to it, combat mechanics that are refreshing and dynamic, etc that are close enough to what we are used to that we aren't intimidated or estranged but unique enough that they aren't accused of cliche.\n\nIf we expect all games to come out with the level of polish or completeness that BG3 has, and we lose what patience we still have for live service games, we will never see the release of any more live service games.\n\nTLDR: The reasons that developers of more player interactive game genres are saying that BG3 sets a bad expectation is that it is far more complicated to make more complicated, live service games, so we shouldn't expect them to come out perfectly and have the same monetization methods as an RPG. If we expect that, it becomes essentially impossible to develop and fund MMOs and MMO like games.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr6atw",
                    "author": "Sandwich2FookinTall",
                    "body": "Gaming has become like film studios.  Copy paste.  No new ideas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr840k",
                    "author": "Greggy398",
                    "body": ">Larian Studios is fairly small,\n\nThey have 450 employees. They're not small.\n\nYou're also missing the point of this whole conversation.\n\nI'm sure if studios had 450 employee's, 3 years in early access to collect feedback and give them income, and were allowed 7 years to make their game then they would also be able to make a great game.\n\nThe reality is that the business of video games and the time and money required to make them, doesn't often allow for that.\n\n>and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nThey often don't though, that is the point.\n\n>I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.\n\nIt's not the developers who make these decisions, it is publishers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwrb0e7",
                    "author": "stoneimp",
                    "body": "GTAV made $1 billion dollars in revenue in 2022. It launched in 2014. It has microtransactions. On average, it has made Rockstar about $700 million per year, about $8 billion overall since launch.\n\nDo you think that Baldur's Gate 3 has the potential for similar returns on investment?\n\nYou're post is focused on quality. Studios, especially big ones, are focused on profits. Quality of course can help profitability, but it is not any type of 1 to 1 correlation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwrulx1",
                    "author": "goodolarchie",
                    "body": "Divinity Original Sin 2 should have too, like six years ago, but they didn't.  So I'm not sure what new lessons can be learned.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsayxd",
                    "author": "mwojo",
                    "body": "Can you explain to me why Baldurs Gate 3 deserves this praise over other top games such as witcher, zelda, god of war, mass effect?\n\nThese lessons aren't new. The gaming community is just a bit upset that big companies exist to make money (as they buy COD 46)",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsekk2",
                    "author": "eightNote",
                    "body": "Why baldurs gate, as opposed to breath of the wild?\n\n\nNintendo continues to exist as a major studio, making big games of.better quality than baldurs gate. Consumers have always had an alternative to consider",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsswus",
                    "author": "EXIT_Throwaway420",
                    "body": "My expectations are soo low for AAA studios these days. There hasnt been a single game that has delivered on my expectations in yeaaaars.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwt7syk",
                    "author": "BytchYouThought",
                    "body": "I don't divinity style of play really. I prefer a bit more free flowing rpg's. I commend their work, but people have different preferences. I'm not sure why you want your view changed though? People have all wanted the amount of effort put in. The bug studio's simply do not have to put I'm that effort, because folks buy their games anyhow and even pre-order. They buy half finished games or games that require you to buy more and more to have a complete game all the time. \n\nBig companies don't care about what you like they care about what sells. Thr amount of time and effort it took for BG3 was almost unprecedented btw. While again I like it isn't going to work that way overall for most studios and folks again can only vote with their wallets. If you like pure D&D style games it's great btw. I just liked the old school style of BG. This felt more like a pure D&D game which have great storylines, character development, etc., but lack the live action feel due to all the pausing that I like personally. \n\nSo yeah, pros and cons. I wouldn't want every RPG to play like Divinity/BG3. No thanks. I think it's a great successful effort, but diversity is still key.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwtxw01",
                    "author": "Pl0OnReddit",
                    "body": "...this game is too amazing to replicate continuously thus it will never be a franchise like MW...that's my best argument.  I don't love the DnD dice aspects and combat system and I fucking ABSOLUTELY HATE  the movement and camera, but even with that said the game is amazingly good.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwuqfgw",
                    "author": "vgubaidulin",
                    "body": "No it should not. The standard should be higher, especially for gigantic triple A studios. Baldurs gate 3 is a good game but it\u2019s not even a finished product. I bought into everyone praising it and jumped right in. In fact, I should\u2019ve waited for something like definitive edition. \n\n\nIf you go to subreddit if baldurs  gate, you will see all the complaints about third act and ending of the game. This is clearly not a finished part of the game. Mouse and keyboard controls are way better than game pad controls. With gamepad I did not even find out that you can multiclass. Notable amount of the quests are bugged: \u201creturn your stuff\u201d quest did not progress forms at all, grymforge was empty (it\u2019s a time capped quest though). Auto saving is very scarce and tied to location not events. If you come from the other side the game does not auto save before a difficult fight. Some of the plot with the dream visitor made little sense to the community.\n \nThere are many problems with the game and putting it on a pedestal is not good. Is it the best rpg of 2023? Probably yes, but it\u2019s far from ideal and I would not even call it a fully finished product. \n\nI don\u2019t play a lot of games anymore though, so maybe if you play everything it really stands out. \nI only played games like Elden Ring, Witcher 3, cyberpunk (many years after the release, it\u2019s actually good) and similar all time hits. Baldur\u2019s gate 3 does not stand out as much as Witcher or souls games do. What Baldur\u2019s gate feels to me is like playing a renewed and improved dragon age origins. This is what dragon age sequels should\u2019ve been. If you talk about setting a standard it should be Witcher 3 and it\u2019s expansions.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwzhhsd",
                    "author": "Hour_Blackberry1213",
                    "body": "I have no idea what\u00b4s all the hype surrounding Baldurs Gate 3.\n\nI don\u00b4t say it\u00b4s bad, but it did not impress me at all.\n\nThen again, i don\u00b4t know how low standards have gotten for this to be a milestone in the history of gaming. Or if this is more about the things that surround games like MTX,bugs,etc...",
                    "date": "2023-08-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kecnnsm",
                    "author": "Michaelangel092",
                    "body": "Yeah, this game can only do that because of Early Access and it being a CRPG. An ARPG can't really get away with a lot of that, because it's way harder to implement. Dragon's Dogma 2 lets you jump on a griffin, and it can fly you off to another environment, in seconds. Imagine BG3...but with DD2 gameplay...just seems impossible.\n\nBG3 doesn't really have physics, verticality, or real-time actions in the same way. It's limited gameplay allows a lot of that stuff, that other games with loftier combat goals just can't. Like FF16 has it's issues, but it wasn't that it wasn't like BG3. It could've just had more fleshed out exploration and side missions like GOW: Ragnarok. There's no way it could have that combat and those boss battles, while having the variance of a BG3.\n\nAlso, it's not cheap to just implement that either. That and it would cause damn near all games to be 5-6 year processes at the very least. GTA5, RDR2 and likely GTA6 are games with a lot of environmental interactions and physics....but they take like 5-12 years to make. To the point that they can barely work on anything else.\n\nI do think that something like TLOU3 should be less cinematic, and more like Witcher 3, but I'd still want them to use motion capture to make the characters move with expression and passion....you think they can possibly mocap even a 3rd of the different variances in BG3, with the same level of quality in their games?\n\nThis would balloon budgets and force prices to increase. Even the Larian CEO said that their next game will be much smaller in scope, because BG3-level games aren't something that's constantly feasible. \n\nEven smaller scale games like Silksong are clearly suffering from feature creep, because they're trying to add so much to a foundation like Hollow Knight, by adding a character with like 3x more mobility and an actual character with history and lore.\n\nBG3 is great, but that being the expectation is not the move. Same happened when it was decided that GTA was the standard, before people realized that GTA was the exception.\n\nEveryone should just maximize their style, like Larian did. But also find a way to make smaller scale games, more frequently and that sell. Tho, for the big AAA companies....they can't afford to just make Hollow Knights and OctoPath Travelers; especially the Sony's and MSs that need to sell consoles.\n\nNintendo is just an anomaly. I don't know how they do what they do, and nobody can replicate that shit lol.",
                    "date": "2023-12-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "15ufdh2",
                "author": "Nepene",
                "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwp6brq",
                "author": "Tanaka917",
                "body": "Except that most AAA studios are no longer in the gaming industry for passion. To them your favorite game is a thing to make money; and nothing makes money like microtransactions. The problem comes in the fact that there are only 2 types of micro transaction and players hate both so much. Pay for power and pay for cosmetics. If you want the full breakdown read all of it I'll make my  main point in the next paragraph for brevity.\n\nBasically there are three parties to a game. The company (goal to make money), average players like you and me (goal to have fun) and the whales (goal to get good fast). The sad truth is a whale can spend more money than you and I make monthly and is happy to do so if the reward is big enough. By comparison I never use real money on a game; my total spent in a decade of playing in less than $300 in game currency. Thus we are stuck in a world where companies would rather appeal to the whale by giving them level 3 power ups and lots of stupid cosmetics that ruin the world for the rest of us. \n\nFor you and me an MMO/RPG is a fun thing to get lost in, a world with lore and story and ideas. To a company it's a cash cow that must be squeezed; to a whale it's a win button with cash. Sad as it is we are not the main audience. We exist to add numbers to the player count to convince whales this is a game that's alive so that they come in and spend lots of money as we move to a new game. Then rinse repeat. It sucks but till companies have another way to make millions of dollars per game that isn't just selling them, we are stuck. \n\nPay to win/for advantage is the by far more hated. In this system there is an option for players to buy items that boost xp, get overpowered gear or otherwise recieve a substantial boost in power that allows you to skip months/years of grind, leaving others in the dirt. These can be split into 3 levels\n\n1. These power boosts while substantial can be caught up to with effort (eg xp boost) \n2. These power boosts are so rare to the point of being impossible to catch for most (insanely rare boss drops)\n3. These power boosts sell a problem to an artificial solution (the enchanting system has a % chance to pbreak your items unless you pay for protection)\n\nIn all 3 cases they aren't great but there are levels to it. \n\nThe second. Cosmetics. Comsetics are purely look based buys that don't affect the game at all. They come in 2 forms. Good and bad.\n\n1. Good cosmetics are the type most players don't mind. They fit the theme, look lke they belong and otherwise are just really cool to look at.\n2. Bad cosmetics are the type that break RP to death. These are things like a car as a mount in a fantasy world, upskirt schoolgirl clothes for NPCs and a pet dragon in a sci-fi setting. These cosmetics tend to be garish and ugly and really easy to make which makes the world look ridiculous.",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwp6sof",
                "author": "Nepene",
                "body": "That\u2019s fair, if they are exclusively catering to whales there is less need to copy mechanics, since they make a pretty bad game and rely on the rich bullying the poor to pay for it. \n\n!delta",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwp6brq"
            },
            {
                "id": "jwp6uyi",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Tanaka917 ([44\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Tanaka917)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-08-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "jwp6sof"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp4yel",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "What are the lessons or \"standards\" that other studios should learn or follow?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp6161",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Players appreciate a wide variety of reactions to classes and abilities and races. To improve immersion try to record more voice lines to cover how the world sees you and your party.\n\nMicrotransactions are immensely unpopular and the more prominent they are made the more unhappy people get. \n\nScarce combat with more meaning is more reliably meaningful than lots of trash mobs. \n\nDon\u2019t make games too sanitised. Sex with a bear, kicking a squirrel, and other similar controversial acts won a lot of love. Try to cater more to people\u2019s impulsive whims.\n\nA wide variety of abilities which let you interact with the world is very popular. Try to make a larger toolset for players to interact with the world.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp4yel"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp5o3f",
                    "author": "ikati4",
                    "body": "I think people don't understand how big corporations work.They won't look at the success of BG3 and say \"hey we should learn from this\".They already have their formula for making money from their products because that's what gaming is when shareholders dip their nails in. Money making products. There were studios in the past that were the golden standard and when bought by a big corporation the dip in quality felt right in the next game(biowere is the perfect example). Even larian studios would fall for this if a big company buys them.\n\nSure BG3 is a great game and you can see that the devs cared for the game. But even in these big companies the devs still care.But they will never have the creative freedom to do what they like due to upper management. So don't expect from a big company to learn from the success of BG3",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp6i6x",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve often seen mechanics and stories and styles of games copied in large studios , so I think they do copy formulas.\n\nThey may make them a bit more soulless, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s fair to say that studios don\u2019t copy at all.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp5o3f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp65a5",
                    "author": "musuperjr585",
                    "body": "While I understand why you would feel this way, I have a few observations about your post. \n\nLarian Studios is a fairly large studio, with approximately 450+ employees that is a fairly large compared to other studios who have less than 50 people. They are not on the same level of employment as a company like Blizzard but they don't operate the same either.\n\nFurthermore you mention \"standards\" and \"lessons\" but don't mention anything tangible, that could be used as a standard or lesson. \n\nBaldur's Gate 3 is a great game and it deserves the recognition and praise but to imply that the game should be the standard for RPGs is a bit extreme. \n\nMany gamers are tired of the copy/paste strategy from game companies. Baldur's Gate is a great game , but many gamers would grow tired of every RPG was simply a reskined BG3.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp6x7u",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "I gave a delta elsewhere for size comparisons. \n\nI mentioned in another comment some ideas. More class and race interaction with the world, less microtransactions, more meaningful enemies.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp65a5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwp7isj",
                    "author": "Sparkling_Lettuce",
                    "body": "What standards do you mean? \nI, for instance, don't like Larian's writing and storytelling. That's just not my cup of tea, I disliked Divinity 2 story and plot, including characters. Almost the same can be said for bg3, their storytelling is just not touching my strings. I have greatly enjoyed other aspects, and I congratulate the studio with their success. But for me, Larians do good gameplay and great visuals, but that's not what I would call rpg standard - I play rpgs for stories, not gameplay. \n\nThe good thing in game dev is that there's something for everyone. If we press small indie studios into follow standards (and Larians had two commercially successful games before, so they are not small), we will never see gemstones. \nI would hate it if for example standards for graphics prevented great indie-rpgs from being created. \nGreat prgs can fail at what is Larians' strong side and still be great and unique.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpa8xb",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "I did say mostly that big studios should follow it, not that smaller ones should be obliged to. \n\nI was more talking about stuff that takes some people like broad character and race dialogue options or controversial content like kicking the squirrel.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwp7isj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpawia",
                    "author": "BlackRedHerring",
                    "body": "As long as mediocre titles make a lot of money with microtransactions or just with short development cycles no big company would \"learn\" from them.\n\nMost developers know what a good game needs / what people want. This has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with incentives.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpbu9x",
                    "author": "Parson1616",
                    "body": "Lol tired of seeing this , I\u2019m sure BG3 is a fine game, but it\u2019s not some paradigm shifting software lol. It\u2019s a DND , turned based game lol cmon now. \n\nThese have really limited appeal do to how the core gameplay is structured. \n\nSomething like starfield is gonna be much more commercially successful.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpuvc7",
                    "author": "SomeRandomme",
                    "body": "\"Starfield is Fallout 4 in space lol cmon now.\"\n\nTurns out if you describe everything at the most reductive level possible it sounds shit.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwpbu9x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpcfx5",
                    "author": "Donny-Bandish",
                    "body": "i honestly think the praise this game has received is incredibly overblown and largely the result of there being so few good crpgs of late. it\u2019s a great game, but some people treat it as a revolutionary, genre-defining entry, something akin to red dead redemption 2. that couldn\u2019t be further from the truth. it\u2019s an excellent sequel to a top 5 rpg - that\u2019s it. \n\nkingdom come deliverance was more groundbreaking.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpjwja",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "I think an interesting though experimental is to ask do you think the next game will meet the standard you believe they have set and if it doesn't do you believe people won't act like they've lost their touch and some other nonsense.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwplzgs",
                    "author": "Dennis_enzo",
                    "body": "I like BG3, but I wouldn't say that now every RPG needs to be a BG3 clone. An RPG with a linear story and set characters can be just as good in its own right.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpowyq",
                    "author": "Sh4rtemis",
                    "body": "It's not that BG3 will save us, it's just that a huge portion of gamers are fucking idiots and buy microtransactions.\n\nMy best friend has probably spent $1500 across Apex Legends and Halo Infinite.\n\nPeople that are stupid with money are what is giving rise to the bullshit live Service.\n\nIt's one thing to be wealthy but I think most that spend far more than $70 on mtx for a game are not wealthy.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpptbh",
                    "author": "bjarni19",
                    "body": "Baldurs gate 3 is a decent game, but in my run it sort of collapsed into a buggy mess in the third act, with several very bugged boss fights and some characters outright despawning and locking off quests. And while this is more of a subjective matter I found the plot completely interesting. I don't really see this as a big leap forward compared to other big RPGs.\n\nNot to mention it was actually released 3 years ago in an extremely buggy state for full price, and the game was fixed up over those three years of early access.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpqykz",
                    "author": "jdvhunt",
                    "body": "The standard was set in the 90s and 00's before the accountants took over all the large publishers, nothing will change other than Larian will likely now employ a bunch of accountants now they've made money and turn into EA in a few years",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpts4e",
                    "author": "midnight_rebirth",
                    "body": "They literally had their game in early access for years. That.should not be a standard. Paying to be a beta tester is in direct opposition to consumer goodwill.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwuqekc",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "If they make it clear that the Early Acess version is not polished and do not mislead people about the release date, then what harm is done to customers?",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwpts4e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpv6b0",
                    "author": "Dramatic_Reality_531",
                    "body": "Nobody makes good games for free. Models that put money over player happiness will always win out.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpw28t",
                    "author": "Physmatik",
                    "body": "What do you mean by \"should\"? That it would be nice or that they have to?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq6ino",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "That they want to earn money, like copying and to complete their goal should do it",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwpw28t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwpxdct",
                    "author": "Helicase21",
                    "body": "The problem is that other studios don't have the resources or background that Larian did. They don't have the financial freedom to take a really long time to do things right. They don't have multiple games' worth of time building up institutional expertise in writing, level design, workflow, etc to build exactly this kind of game. \n\nSo while Larian may not have \"anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios\", those resources they do have are *incredibly tightly focused*.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq5jy3",
                    "author": "Zippy0723",
                    "body": "What is the point of the CMV? Respectfully, this post is just \"game is good! Other games should be good too\"! You offer zero actual \"examples\" that other people in the industry should follow.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq5nx2",
                    "author": "the-city-moved-to-me",
                    "body": "> It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good.\n\nCould we see some source/context for this claim? Seems like kind of a strawman tbh. \n\nWho exactly is saying that, and what are their full arguments?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq85i3",
                    "author": "darthmonks",
                    "body": "Other comments have already talked about mechanics of the game and the developer size so I'm not going to here. Instead I'm going to say that Baldur's Gate 3 isn't that unique for being a single player game with no microtransactions. Off the top of my head: this year alone we've had Hogwarts Legacy, Jedi: Survivor, Tears of The Kingdom, and Baldur's Gate 3 release and they're all single player games with no microtransactions. We've also got Starfield coming out in a couple of weeks. There's plenty of single player games with no microtransactions out there. \n\nFor the point about developers saying it shouldn't set a standard: that's been taken out of context in it's reporting. They weren't saying that the game itself shouldn't set a standard. They were talking about the context of it's development. Baldur's Gate 3 took 7 years to develop, spent 3 years in early access, and Larian didn't have a publisher breathing down their neck. \n\nLarian was in a very unique situation to be able to make Baldur's Gate 3 the way they did. Most games have a publisher that wants them released in a reasonable timeline because they want to make a profit fairly quickly after their investment. It's not unreasonable for the publisher to want to make a profit on the thing they're financing but it does mean that most games can't spend 7 years in development. \n\nAlso, it would suck as a player if every game spent 7 years in development. There are already some major developers that have spent years to make a game \u2014 e.g. GTA 6, Starfield (and Elder Scrolls 6 after it). Do you really want to spend 7 years waiting for the next game from every developer?",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqyhdy",
                    "author": "Kiram",
                    "body": "I'll also add that in addition to not working with a publisher, Larian had a few other HUGE advantages that aren't necessarily easily replicatable for other big games. And a lot of those advantages overlap to create not quite a perfect storm, but as close to one as you please.\n\nFirst, they had an absolutely huge amount of buy-in for their early access. The game had already sold over a million copies before it was released. The game was in early access for nearly 3 years. Most games that end up successful average about a year in early access. And that sort of early access release schedule isn't something I think a lot of people want to see become the norm for AAA releases.\n\nSecond, the game is in a genre and subgenre where the standard for games is actually quite a lot of content. BG3 has 174 hours of cinematics. Most games do not have 174 hours worth of content, period. And that's not a bad thing. Most genres and subgenres don't benefit from that sort of scale. But it meant that BG3 could put out 1/3rd of their game on early access, and have it feel like a full experience, while still holding back enough content that players wouldn't complete the full game and then drop it. \n\nThird, the game was made with very mature technology, by a team experienced in this exact type of game, with a pre-made mature ruleset. Larian didn't have to create a brand-new engine or suite of tools for creating their content. They didn't have to train a bunch of people in how to use those tools. They didn't have to design a new RPG system. Their team could, in a sense, hit the ground running on content. \n\nFourth, this is a licensed product, and a sequel to one of the most beloved series in it's genre. While it's pretty clear that we have a lot of people who have never played Baldur's Gate who are jumping in at 3, it's hard to ignore that the Baldur's Gate games were *the* gold standard for CRPGs. The series had a lot of cultural cache, even if there was a large segment of players that weren't willing to go back and play the originals. It's also a branded D&D game! And D&D has been going through a bit of a cultural moment in the past few years.\n\n-------\n\nAll of that adds up to BG3 being the amazing game it is, but these are also things we cannot expect to be standard across the industry. And I think that in a lot of ways, that's good. BG3 is really an amazing game, and I'm glad it exists, but I don't want every game to be BG3.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwq85i3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwq862t",
                    "author": "transientcat",
                    "body": "I'd be curious to know what other games you thought set a new standard.\n\nBG3 from everything I have seen is a very good update to an existing franchise but hardly ground breaking in any sense. A lot of what you have described in other comments (lack of MTX, In-Game consequences for actions/choices, random shit to do) isn't new or even a new packaging of those features. \n\nOther people have indicated the game itself has your bog standard technical bugs on release.  \n\nIt seems unclear as to why it's setting this standard.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwunaam",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "It seems BG3 is getting most of its praise because it has a huge amount of quality gameplay and narrative content, allows you to make many different decisions with different outcomes, has a presentation that on a technical level is very impressive for a game of its genre, and works ok for most people.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwq862t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqcbmn",
                    "author": "Xystem4",
                    "body": "Not trying to change your mind on this, just wanted to say that honestly? Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 is the buggiest game I\u2019ve ever played, and I\u2019m very disappointed nobody is talking about it. \n\nI typically don\u2019t play AAA games, especially right on release. So I\u2019m aware this is far from the worst example (looking at you, Cyberpunk). But the game right off the bat has such game breaking bugs, and general sloppiness. I\u2019ve had to restart 3 campaigns in a row because the save file got corrupted, and wouldn\u2019t let me continue. When playing with friends, random enemies will be invisible for some of us but not others. Dialogue sometimes simply won\u2019t show up. Friends get stuck forever in cutscenes that haven\u2019t actually started playing, and need to quit and rejoin multiple times. \n\nI\u2019m sure this is better than a lot of AAA releases right when they come out, but I would sure hope that *this* isn\u2019t what we resign ourselves to as a gleaming standard. (And yes, I agree, when it\u2019s *actually working* the game is fantastic)",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqdqdx",
                    "author": "NinjaExpansion",
                    "body": "I just bought this for $AUD 90 and it\u2019s the best gaming purchase I\u2019ve ever made. No regrets and would support future Larian releases.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqhznn",
                    "author": "LucidLeviathan",
                    "body": "I would suggest that the reason that Baldur's Gate 3 was able to put together such an immersive experience was because of the D&D IP. They had access to over 50 years' worth of worldbuilding. Hundreds of books from dozens of authors contributed to the setting that Baldur's Gate is set in, and thus the designers did not have to do that part themselves. However, not all developers will have access to such an extensive IP. It is unreasonable to expect a developer to design such a detailed world from scratch otherwise.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqk8i2",
                    "author": "Not_a_tasty_fish",
                    "body": "The major developers/publishers people imagine when the phrase \"AAA Game\" is invoked are all publicly traded on the stock market. They need consistent revenue and growth in order to satisfy their shareholders and not tank the company's share price.  As shitty as they are, Wall Street has figured out that microtransactions make a LOT of money, so removing them completely becomes near unthinkable. A CEO that announces that their next game won't come out for 6 years would be replaced by a board of directors almost instantly, because that level of polish and quality has diminishing returns whereas they could just spend that extra development budget on marketing and break even that way.   \n\n\nYou can argue that this is a bad thing and that it won't lead to good games, but you're sort of missing the bigger picture that these companies aren't interested in making games that people love. Maybe the developers are, but the higher-ups and the business side folks that actually control what the developers get to work on simply aren't interested in that. Instead, they have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to make as much money as possible, which means shipping titles more frequently and leveraged to take as much cash as they can get.   \n\n\nIf you want to avoid this sort of behavior, you need to stop buying games from companies that are publicly traded. Assuming that this can set a standard going forward however is hopelessly na\u00efve, as a good game will never win over bigger returns for investors.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqkn36",
                    "author": "ToranjaNuclear",
                    "body": "Have you considered that not everyone wants every RPG to be like Baldur's Gate?\n\nIf you go to r/baldursgate especially, you'll find out that a lot of fans of the old games aren't really fond of the new one.\n\nAs much as I'd like some studios to follow on the steps of Baldur's Gate, I certainly do not expect, nor want, them all to do so. Or else we'll have another 10 years full of games that look way too much like Dark Souls.\n\nThere are many other games they could draw inspiration from. Disco Elysium, Undertale, Kingdom Come, CDProjekt games etc. I really don't hope that Baldur's Gate alone should set a new standard for the industry.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqkohw",
                    "author": "malec2b",
                    "body": "So I understand the sentiment behind this view.  AAA games have for a while have become increasingly bloated, shallow, buggy, and bogged down with micro-transactions and subscriptions.  And then here comes Larian with a massive cRPG that not only massive and systems-driven, but also polished and made with high production values.  It's the whole package.  Why can't \\*every\\* game be like this?  Why can't we demand better from AAA studios when they've got so much money to throw at games?  Where's that money going?\n\nThe fundamental problem with this assertion is that it actually buys into and re-enforces the fundamental lie underpinning the AAA industry, which is that all it takes to make a good game is throwing time and money at it.  Sure, time and money help, but only when they are backing up skill, creativity, personal investment in a project, and, above all, clear direction and vision.\n\nLet's take a look at Larian Studios and see \\*why\\* they are able to pull something like Baldur's Gate 3 off.  \n\nLarian Studios has been releasing RPGs since the early 2000s, beginning with the Diablo-inspired Action-RPGs of Divine Divinity and Divinity II.  They were then able to run a successful kickstarter (which in turn allowed them to secure additional funding) for an old-school Baldur's Gate-inspired cRPG in the form of Divinity: Original Sin, which was successful enough for them to make an even bigger sequel.  After 2 decades of making RPGs, and \\~5 years specifically making Infinity Engine-style isometric cRPGs, they were given the license and funding to make Baldur's Gate III.  \n\nLarian then spent roughly 3 years developing Baldur's Gate III to get it into an Early Access release, and then, crucially, another 3 years \\*in early access\\*.  It cannot be understated the degree to which the game's stability and relative lack of bugs at launch is due to the fact that the game was getting public beta-testing for 3 whole years that was not just free but payed for by the audience.\n\nSo, to recap, Baldur's Gate 3 is the end of a story that involves 20 years of industry experience in the RPG genre, \\~10 years of making specifically Baldur's Gate style cRPGs, 6 of those years making Baldur's Gate 3 itself, and 3 years of early access. \n\nIt is not a problem you can throw money at.  The AAA industry is, from the ground up, just not set up to make games like this, no matter how much they overwork their developers (and, trust me, they overwork their developers).\n\nBut, you might say: well, even with all that, it couldn't hurt for AAA developers to start doing 6-year development cycles and putting more even more resources behind their games.  Even if they lack Larian's experience it'll surely lead to better games.\n\nBut the thing you have to keep in mind is that AAA companies are fundamentally risk-averse.  The longer the development cycle is, and the larger the budget, the fewer total games a company can make, and the more burden there is on each individual game to be a financial success.  This both means that companies are more likely to play it safe (and a massive, systems-driven old-school cRPG is not \"playing it safe.\"  It is a gamble that payed off), and also means that these companies are incentivized to do everything they can to extract as much money as they can from their games.  That means micro-transactions, season passes, Games As A Service, etc...  All the things that Baldur's Gate 3 is a breath of fresh air from.\n\nMaking a game like Baldur's Gate 3 takes decades of experience, and a clear vision and understanding of the sort of game you're trying to make, inside and out.\n\nSo what are you to do as a lowly consumer do if you want to see more games like Baldur's Gate 3 in the world?\n\nThis is going to sound counter-intuitive, but hear me out: Lower your standards.  Or, at least, lower your standards in specific areas regarding production value, while maintaining high standards for design, complexity, creativity, etc...  Have lower standards for graphics, voice acting, music, and focus primarily on fundamentals.  Baldur's Gate 3 would not exist if people hadn't supported Larian when they were making (comparatively) lower budget games like Divinity: Original Sin.  They wouldn't have had a chance to make Divinity: Original Sin if people hadn't bought Divine Divinity back in the early 2000s.  \n\nSimply \"having higher standards\" wouldn't have produced Baldur's Gate 3, it would have killed the studio that would eventually make it in the cradle.\n\nGive developers who are making the sort of games you want to see, even if the production values aren't there, a chance.  If enough people support them, the production values will come.  It's easier for a studio with a deep understanding of the fundamentals access to more resources than it is to give a studio with access to resources a deep understanding of the fundamentals.\n\nThere are a ton of low-to-medium budget cRPGs out there by studios doing great work with limited resources.  Same for any other niche genre that the AAA industry won't touch.  If you want a big budget version of those games, don't rely on the AAA industry to give it to you; support the people currently doing the work and hope that the budget will eventually come to them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr9qhf",
                    "author": "csl110",
                    "body": "This is actually the best reply here.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwqkohw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqkq2m",
                    "author": "ThatNoGoodGoose",
                    "body": "Larian have resources that smaller studios don\u2019t and have been able to specialize in ways that very few large studios can afford to. They\u2019re special in being a one-game studio with a budget. In recognizing how amazing Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 is, we should also recognize it wasn\u2019t made under \u201cnormal\u201d game development conditions. It\u2019s not easy to copy.\n\n  \nIf you wanted to copy Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 and have the same level of options and reactivity then the only way to do it is time, talent and specialized resources. It\u2019s not advancements in technology or (just) money. You\u2019d need to change your development conditions. You may well need years to develop the toolset and build/train the team with the very specific experience needed to even begin a project like this, and years more to see it to completion.\n\n  \nThat\u2019s not to say other studios can\u2019t learn from BG3 or that we should expect bad games from other studios. But right now, most other studios don\u2019t actually have the resources to do everything Larian did well. And until they do, BG3 will be exceptional rather than a standard.  \n\u00a0  \nFor some of the ways BG3\u2019s game development was exceptional, it was:  \n\n\n* In development for 6 years with a team of more than 400 people, including 3 years of successful Early Access and all the feedback, funding and bug fixing that comes with that.  \n\n* Made with the benefit of every tool, workflow and lesson Larian had gained from developing other massive RPGs before this. Their team have been honing their expertise in this one *specific* area since 2002.  \n\n* Made with an engine custom built for this specific game (a modified version of Divinity Original Sin 2\u2019s engine). Other studios often have to work within the constraints of game engines and tools not specifically made for the game in question \u2013 making it difficult and expensive to create systems tailored exactly to that one game\u2019s needs. (E.G. Ubisoft using the same engine for various action-roleplaying Assassin\u2019s Creed games, online multiplayer tactical shooter Rainbow Six and sports game Riders Republic.)  \n\n* A massive risk for Larian. If this one game had been a commercial failure, Larian studio would most likely not have survived.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqtf41",
                    "author": "Stokkolm",
                    "body": "I would call 174 hours of cinematics and a script 2 million words long (Witcher 3 had 450k) way excessive.\n\nCD Projekt RED made Witcher 3 which was set a high bar for AAA RPGs, and yet same team failed next time with Cyberpunk because it was too big and ambitious even for them.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwulx3j",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "Did Larian say they were on the verge of bankruptcy right before Baldur's Gate 3 came out, either in 2020 or 2023?",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwqtf41"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwqv83m",
                    "author": "zero_z77",
                    "body": "I think the free market is the free market, and people should buy the games that they want to play. If BG3 is *your* standard, that's fine, don't buy anything that doesn't live up to that standard. But don't expect every other player to adhere to your standards. If people wanna buy crappy AAA titles, then that's their buisness. AAA developers are going to stick to whatever \"standard\" they think will make them the most money. If that's BG3, then so be it, if it's not, then there's plenty of other games to play.\n\nI have very high standards for the games i play, which is why i don't frequently buy AAA titles. They just don't hold my interest anymore. I need deep and complex gameplay that gives me the freedom to play my way without making me open my wallet every 5 minutes, and i could care less how new, pretty, or popular it is.\n\nNo one has to buy or play brand new AAA titles, there are plenty of small time developers out there making good games, and plenty of old titles that are still fun and enjoyable if you're willing to see past their age.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr03qg",
                    "author": "KamikazeArchon",
                    "body": "There's a lot of commentary specific to the gaming industry, but I think there's a much more fundamental issue to consider. Let's assume for the purposes of this comment that BG3 is indeed exceptional and far above the current norm.\n\nIn *any* context, an exceptional outlier *cannot* become the standard. That is the nature of outliers.\n\nIt doesn't make sense to say Usain Bolt is the standard for runners, or that van Gogh is the standard for painters, etc.\n\nIf creating games was a perfectly reproducible process, sure - but it's not. There is no Make BG3 Machine that can be mass-produced. A great deal of it is still a simple matter of chance; ranging from chance in the sense of story/gameplay ideas aligning with customer desires, to chance in the sense of people being born with talent and potential in particular areas, to chance in the sense of financial circumstances aligning.\n\nIn any such field where chance matters (which is almost all of them) you'll have a natural distribution of outcomes, with most things being average and a few things being particularly good or bad.\n\nDemanding that the average shift up to match the good extremes is not realistic. *If* there is a concrete reproducible thing that can be extracted and applied to future processes, sure, that's useful - but *proving* that a particular thing is concretely reproducible is difficult. A single data point is hard to extrapolate from, and intuition is rarely a good basis - e.g. you may like the many dialogues in BG3, but just throwing more voice lines at another game won't necessarily make it amazing.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr3hw3",
                    "author": "Captain-Griffen",
                    "body": "> Larian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios.\n\nMore employees than Bethesda Game Studios and they have spent more time on it than Starfield.\n\nThey had time and resources that AAA game studios wish they had.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwulhx0",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": ">They had time and resources that AAA game studios wish they had.\n\nI'm not sure that's the case.  In the FTC court case, Sony stated that The Last of Us Part 2 took 70 months to make and cost $212M and Horizon: Forbidden West took 5 years to make cost $220M. \n\nWe probably won't ever get Larian's official financial data but it is unreasonable to assume that they had a much bigger development budget, time, or resources than many AAA studios who often have the backing of a big publisher  and a larger potential funding pool for game development.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "jwr3hw3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr5l87",
                    "author": "natelion445",
                    "body": "I will actually contend with the CMV instead of just argue about gaming. Developers say that BG3 shouldn't be the standard for possibly reasons that are not sinister: \n\nBG3 is a single or cooperative \"one and done\" story type game. I would wager most of the developers that are saying these things are developers of games that are more multiplayer massive. Either MMOs or MMO-lites. It is far more difficult to release a fully polished and perfect game when there are things like player driven economies, duping, the need for \"end-game loops\". MMOs, for example, have to keep the concurrent player base high enough that game mechanics like trade, grouping, competition, etc can flourish. Frankly, there has to be some level of \"addictive\" aspects to games to keep people hooked for months or years so that new players look around and see these aspirational veterans. \n\nLive-service games are infinitely harder to get right than RPGs and almost impossible to get right on launch day. They are also incredibly expensive to maintain. Between continued development cost and server maintenance, some games require consistent cash flows to operate, while a game like BG3 can survive off of release revenue and DLC costs. We want live service games, so expecting them to have a similar monetization model as a stand alone RPG is a bad expectation.\n\nClass customization can be done in a solo/small group RPG like this because one class or mechanic can be OP without ruining the game. If you want to RP with a less optimized build in BG3, turn on easy or medium mode and go ahead. If you want to RP in an MMO, you actually lose out on content because you can't run groups or succeed in PvP with meme RP builds. So other games have to be meticulously balanced to such a degree that having tons and tons of class combinations becomes a problem more than a benefit.\n\nBG3 was able to utilize a known universe (DnD) with fleshed out lore, settings, character archetypes. They were also able to use the combat mechanics of DnD and previous games like DOS2. It gets away with being kind of campy because it is tapping into a beloved mythos. Other games have to start from scratch to create an entire new world with good internal logic, interesting characters and how the fit in to it, combat mechanics that are refreshing and dynamic, etc that are close enough to what we are used to that we aren't intimidated or estranged but unique enough that they aren't accused of cliche.\n\nIf we expect all games to come out with the level of polish or completeness that BG3 has, and we lose what patience we still have for live service games, we will never see the release of any more live service games.\n\nTLDR: The reasons that developers of more player interactive game genres are saying that BG3 sets a bad expectation is that it is far more complicated to make more complicated, live service games, so we shouldn't expect them to come out perfectly and have the same monetization methods as an RPG. If we expect that, it becomes essentially impossible to develop and fund MMOs and MMO like games.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr6atw",
                    "author": "Sandwich2FookinTall",
                    "body": "Gaming has become like film studios.  Copy paste.  No new ideas.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwr840k",
                    "author": "Greggy398",
                    "body": ">Larian Studios is fairly small,\n\nThey have 450 employees. They're not small.\n\nYou're also missing the point of this whole conversation.\n\nI'm sure if studios had 450 employee's, 3 years in early access to collect feedback and give them income, and were allowed 7 years to make their game then they would also be able to make a great game.\n\nThe reality is that the business of video games and the time and money required to make them, doesn't often allow for that.\n\n>and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nThey often don't though, that is the point.\n\n>I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.\n\nIt's not the developers who make these decisions, it is publishers.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwrb0e7",
                    "author": "stoneimp",
                    "body": "GTAV made $1 billion dollars in revenue in 2022. It launched in 2014. It has microtransactions. On average, it has made Rockstar about $700 million per year, about $8 billion overall since launch.\n\nDo you think that Baldur's Gate 3 has the potential for similar returns on investment?\n\nYou're post is focused on quality. Studios, especially big ones, are focused on profits. Quality of course can help profitability, but it is not any type of 1 to 1 correlation.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwrulx1",
                    "author": "goodolarchie",
                    "body": "Divinity Original Sin 2 should have too, like six years ago, but they didn't.  So I'm not sure what new lessons can be learned.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsayxd",
                    "author": "mwojo",
                    "body": "Can you explain to me why Baldurs Gate 3 deserves this praise over other top games such as witcher, zelda, god of war, mass effect?\n\nThese lessons aren't new. The gaming community is just a bit upset that big companies exist to make money (as they buy COD 46)",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsekk2",
                    "author": "eightNote",
                    "body": "Why baldurs gate, as opposed to breath of the wild?\n\n\nNintendo continues to exist as a major studio, making big games of.better quality than baldurs gate. Consumers have always had an alternative to consider",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwsswus",
                    "author": "EXIT_Throwaway420",
                    "body": "My expectations are soo low for AAA studios these days. There hasnt been a single game that has delivered on my expectations in yeaaaars.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwt7syk",
                    "author": "BytchYouThought",
                    "body": "I don't divinity style of play really. I prefer a bit more free flowing rpg's. I commend their work, but people have different preferences. I'm not sure why you want your view changed though? People have all wanted the amount of effort put in. The bug studio's simply do not have to put I'm that effort, because folks buy their games anyhow and even pre-order. They buy half finished games or games that require you to buy more and more to have a complete game all the time. \n\nBig companies don't care about what you like they care about what sells. Thr amount of time and effort it took for BG3 was almost unprecedented btw. While again I like it isn't going to work that way overall for most studios and folks again can only vote with their wallets. If you like pure D&D style games it's great btw. I just liked the old school style of BG. This felt more like a pure D&D game which have great storylines, character development, etc., but lack the live action feel due to all the pausing that I like personally. \n\nSo yeah, pros and cons. I wouldn't want every RPG to play like Divinity/BG3. No thanks. I think it's a great successful effort, but diversity is still key.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwtxw01",
                    "author": "Pl0OnReddit",
                    "body": "...this game is too amazing to replicate continuously thus it will never be a franchise like MW...that's my best argument.  I don't love the DnD dice aspects and combat system and I fucking ABSOLUTELY HATE  the movement and camera, but even with that said the game is amazingly good.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwuqfgw",
                    "author": "vgubaidulin",
                    "body": "No it should not. The standard should be higher, especially for gigantic triple A studios. Baldurs gate 3 is a good game but it\u2019s not even a finished product. I bought into everyone praising it and jumped right in. In fact, I should\u2019ve waited for something like definitive edition. \n\n\nIf you go to subreddit if baldurs  gate, you will see all the complaints about third act and ending of the game. This is clearly not a finished part of the game. Mouse and keyboard controls are way better than game pad controls. With gamepad I did not even find out that you can multiclass. Notable amount of the quests are bugged: \u201creturn your stuff\u201d quest did not progress forms at all, grymforge was empty (it\u2019s a time capped quest though). Auto saving is very scarce and tied to location not events. If you come from the other side the game does not auto save before a difficult fight. Some of the plot with the dream visitor made little sense to the community.\n \nThere are many problems with the game and putting it on a pedestal is not good. Is it the best rpg of 2023? Probably yes, but it\u2019s far from ideal and I would not even call it a fully finished product. \n\nI don\u2019t play a lot of games anymore though, so maybe if you play everything it really stands out. \nI only played games like Elden Ring, Witcher 3, cyberpunk (many years after the release, it\u2019s actually good) and similar all time hits. Baldur\u2019s gate 3 does not stand out as much as Witcher or souls games do. What Baldur\u2019s gate feels to me is like playing a renewed and improved dragon age origins. This is what dragon age sequels should\u2019ve been. If you talk about setting a standard it should be Witcher 3 and it\u2019s expansions.",
                    "date": "2023-08-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "jwzhhsd",
                    "author": "Hour_Blackberry1213",
                    "body": "I have no idea what\u00b4s all the hype surrounding Baldurs Gate 3.\n\nI don\u00b4t say it\u00b4s bad, but it did not impress me at all.\n\nThen again, i don\u00b4t know how low standards have gotten for this to be a milestone in the history of gaming. Or if this is more about the things that surround games like MTX,bugs,etc...",
                    "date": "2023-08-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "15ufdh2",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Baldur\u2019s gate 3 was recently released and got a lot of positive press. It also led to a lot of game developers saying it shouldn\u2019t set a standard and others shouldn\u2019t expect other games to be as good. \n\nLarian Studios is fairly small, not massively rich, and doesn\u2019t have anything near the resources of the big triple a gaming studios. Those triple a gaming studios do routinely copy other games because creativity is hard and proven success helps. \n\nAs such, they should be looking for lessons from this, we should compare future rpgs to Baldur\u2019s gate, and they have the resources to do anything Larian did well. \n\nNote that I am not saying all games need to copy them. Sports games don\u2019t for example and it\u2019s ok for them to seek other inspirations. I just feel trying to copy the success of Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 for rpgs is a reasonable and fair idea developers should look into.",
                    "date": "2023-08-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Baldur\u2019s Gate 3 should set a standard for other games, especially larger studios",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/15ufdh2/cmv_baldurs_gate_3_should_set_a_standard_for/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kecnnsm",
                    "author": "Michaelangel092",
                    "body": "Yeah, this game can only do that because of Early Access and it being a CRPG. An ARPG can't really get away with a lot of that, because it's way harder to implement. Dragon's Dogma 2 lets you jump on a griffin, and it can fly you off to another environment, in seconds. Imagine BG3...but with DD2 gameplay...just seems impossible.\n\nBG3 doesn't really have physics, verticality, or real-time actions in the same way. It's limited gameplay allows a lot of that stuff, that other games with loftier combat goals just can't. Like FF16 has it's issues, but it wasn't that it wasn't like BG3. It could've just had more fleshed out exploration and side missions like GOW: Ragnarok. There's no way it could have that combat and those boss battles, while having the variance of a BG3.\n\nAlso, it's not cheap to just implement that either. That and it would cause damn near all games to be 5-6 year processes at the very least. GTA5, RDR2 and likely GTA6 are games with a lot of environmental interactions and physics....but they take like 5-12 years to make. To the point that they can barely work on anything else.\n\nI do think that something like TLOU3 should be less cinematic, and more like Witcher 3, but I'd still want them to use motion capture to make the characters move with expression and passion....you think they can possibly mocap even a 3rd of the different variances in BG3, with the same level of quality in their games?\n\nThis would balloon budgets and force prices to increase. Even the Larian CEO said that their next game will be much smaller in scope, because BG3-level games aren't something that's constantly feasible. \n\nEven smaller scale games like Silksong are clearly suffering from feature creep, because they're trying to add so much to a foundation like Hollow Knight, by adding a character with like 3x more mobility and an actual character with history and lore.\n\nBG3 is great, but that being the expectation is not the move. Same happened when it was decided that GTA was the standard, before people realized that GTA was the exception.\n\nEveryone should just maximize their style, like Larian did. But also find a way to make smaller scale games, more frequently and that sell. Tho, for the big AAA companies....they can't afford to just make Hollow Knights and OctoPath Travelers; especially the Sony's and MSs that need to sell consoles.\n\nNintendo is just an anomaly. I don't know how they do what they do, and nobody can replicate that shit lol.",
                    "date": "2023-12-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "15ufdh2"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16jc85e",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0p3r18",
                "author": "dark1859",
                "body": "I think the problem is less people being picky and more A mix up a couple of things all tracing back to the internet period.\n\n\nSpecifically, the internet is an echo chamber. And we hear All The Time From a very loud and vocal minority in the US at least Of the individuals, male and female that grew super restrictive environments, unable to socially mesh with their peer group In the romantic sense, either because they expect certain things that the general populace does not expect Either as a direct result of or in direct rebellion that restrictive environment. (I.e. The dainty nineteen fifties house wife, The simp husband and a one sided open relationship, Or any number of unhealthy toxic mindsets).\n\n\nThe other and I'd argue bigger issue, would be the social parasite streamer/influncer types like andrew tate And parapolitical groups Like america first Telling these individuals that the problem is not with them. But rather telling them that the problem is with some large societal level Conspiracy targeting them.\nThis only exasperates the problem And it's how we end up with individuals like incells Who legitimately believe the other gender is out to get them.\n\n\nAlso as a post note, I'm really not sure who the major influencers on the other side of the coin are for women, haven't really kept up with  Female lolcows like sarkeesian and zoe since since Jim (metokur) realized the entire gamergate movement was turning into one big grift and noped out, but I imagine they're still causing problems And being the peak of toxic femininity and all that Alongside some new generation of scammers trying to like the incells Blame all of their personal and societal issues on the other gender",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16jc85e"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0p409w",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "!delta in that its possible its not really an issue and maybe the Andrew tates are hyping it up",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0p3r18"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0p44me",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/dark1859 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/dark1859)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0p409w"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ouj59",
                    "author": "Drawsome_Stuff",
                    "body": ">Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?\n\nI think this depends what you mean. If you're asking if it's you're responsibility, personally, then no.\n\nShould you, in general, support social policies that help these people? I'd argue yes, because they're still people in need of help. But to me, that means advocating for the services they need to be available to them.\n\nI don't think the burden is on individuals, but I do think the burden is on society to make sure as many people have access to affordable mental health care as possible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0oupyu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah I can get with that but there seems to be a growing number at least on reddit of views such as \" women need to stop being shallow etc\" \n\nBut sure I support community clubs etc and whatever men need",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ouj59"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ouw45",
                    "author": "mining_moron",
                    "body": "Isn't a world in which these men are happy better than one where they aren't, provided that making them happy doesn't cause greater unhappiness for others?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ov3py",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "well yeah hence the part about unhappy married women. My point was if women lowered their standard they would be less happy. They are picky for a reason. Because a certain standard is what's making them happy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ouw45"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ovuby",
                    "author": "woundedant",
                    "body": "I think everyone is picky, not just women. And to add, I haven't really heard of it falling on the woman's shoulders to lower her standards. Do you care to explain why you think this way? From personal experience or data?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ovxsg",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Personal experience. I'm trying to understand the (reddit) world mostly I guess.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ovuby"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ow84g",
                    "author": "TheAlistmk3",
                    "body": ">If women are picky the that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards?\n\nI completely agree, as long as there is no hypocrisy involved then it's fine. E.g. if it's acceptable for men to be too short, its also acceptable for women to be too fat.\n\n>Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nThis doesn't really mean anything imo, you are comparing happiness and one group is only present because it is unhappy. \n\n>A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nWell, it depends what you mean by the lengths of platonic attention. As in, if you acknowledge someone just for existing, that could then lead to a friendship. Personally I like to acknowledge other people exist and give them a level of respect accordingly, essentially keeping the front door open to new people. When you made friends at school or preschool, how many of them had to qualify their existence before you acknowledged them? Do all relationships need to be transactional in this way?\n\n>My view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either.\n\nI agree that men need to do more, but why is it entirely on men? Isn't the point of society that we help eachother? The swing side to this seems to me that why should men help women? The emancipation of women has been in part successful thanks to the support of men. Do you feel this was right for men to do or should men not be helping women?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0owo8v",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I respect people as people but beyond that I don't need to act like they are a friend. (Ie add their contact info etc)\n\nYour own happiness is on you. Not on others. No one should have any moral obligation to make you happy. \n\nPersonal interactions in my opinion is different from legal stuff like voting rights.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ow84g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0owfkg",
                    "author": "Diogonni",
                    "body": ">A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nGeneral everyday etiquette says that if you\u2019re in a group of people, say at at bar or something like that, at a minimum you say hello. People also say to introduce yourself, say your name and shake your hand. But I say that at a minimum you say hello. What are you saying here? Are you saying the woman should be rude and just ignore the man? What is that based off of then? Is it based on their looks or what?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ox62d",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Hello to a stranger I don't know? Maybe its area but every hello ends up being some druggie trying to talk some more and waste my time. Or its some guy thinking he can waste my time. Or some woman trying to tell me about church. \n\nPoint is I actually don't think anyone owes anyone a hello",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0owfkg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0own5c",
                    "author": "marketMAWNster",
                    "body": "I think both genders in the under 35 bracket are experiencing a cultural crisis that has been developing since the 1960s (we are just at the extreme now) \n\nMany men were implicitly promised a world like the 1980s and are simply not seeing it. They aren't necessarily looking for 1950s women but certainly not women of today.\n\nWomen have a challenge because they were implicitly promised radical progress to some new equilibrium that has not been very well defined. This is a challenge because what the average woman is looking for is both incoherent and also relatively non existent. \n\nThis is leaving both parties feeling unsatisfied, unmet, unseen, unheard. It's well reported the dating crisis/sex crisis/marriage crisis. \n\nAs it pertains to your question - I think it's both genders jobs to move towards some type of balance. It's not like the women should do all the moving and I agree that there are plenty of low quality men out there (I always advocate that men need to be impressive to impress a woman - otherwise why are they needed?) \n\nIt's looking like roughly 1/3 of millennial/gen z is doing perfectly fine. I never had problems getting with women, I am happily married in a christian conservative household. We are both college graduates, both want children, both share lifestyles, both work, both do chores, both share finances etc. We have a moderately traditional view of marriage and it works out perfectly (age 26). Got married at 23. This story is very common but not as well advertised\n\nThe other 2/3rds are stuck being either too \"pro-men\" or too \"pro-women\". Meaning incels, radical feminists etc who are simply diametrically opposed to each other. They wont/shouldn't date because their views don't mix. These people are going to have a very hard time in life at their current trajectories",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0owyt6",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why? I will link the studies later but I remember reading studies for the most part women staying single aren't that unhappy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0own5c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p07b7",
                    "author": "probono105",
                    "body": "There is nothing wrong with it, and newer and newer tech allows us to maintain the single lifestyles and not have to worry about the less amount of people wanting to have children. There would be a problem if that tech wasn't there to take up the slack in lower birth rates. Basically, the world we enjoy was built by having a huge educated workforce to make things incredibly easy and bountiful. This creates a world where one wants to and can enjoy it unencumbered, which is fine, but this eventually creates a shortage of the labor that made it that way, and living conditions would begin to revert backwards if the replacement rate fell too low without tech this would be the case.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p0tvp",
                    "author": "EVIL5",
                    "body": "I follow a strict \u2018mind my own business\u2019 policy which means I don\u2019t give a f if anyone wants to be picky or single. What you do in your personal life is not anyone\u2019s business so I\u2019m not sure who gives a f about changing your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p16w1",
                    "author": "Steven-Maturin",
                    "body": "\"People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix.\"\n\nNo they don't.\n\n\"I just find it hard to understand why its on women. \"\n\nIt isn't?\n\n\" Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men?\"\n\nMaybe just keep yourself to yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p44p0",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "This is very much a thing Redditors love to complain about.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p16w1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p1ws5",
                    "author": "arrouk",
                    "body": "A large part of the problem is many women want a traditional man and to be treated like their grandma would have been treated. \n\nThis would be fine if they acted like their grandma did, but they don't they are modern women. \n\nThe disconnect is with both men and women, women have evolved and moved on but men are mostly stuck in an in-between not modern but not traditional role.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1zoq",
                    "author": "Bulkylucas123",
                    "body": "Women haven't evolved at all, they just have a better bargaining position.\n\nI leave that up to the reader to decide if they believe it is good or not. \n\nMen on the other hand have to straddle the line between societal and biological expectations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p1ws5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p1xtn",
                    "author": "NateHurst2187",
                    "body": "I agree that women can be picky but it feels like when a guy is picky everyone's on their ass about it",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p459d",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Source?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p1xtn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p239p",
                    "author": "LEMO2000",
                    "body": "\u201cMy issue is that often people talk about this situation as if the problem to be fixed is on women not men\u201d\n\nThis is fair, but I have a bit of a \u201cconsistency check\u201d I\u2019d like to perform. Do you believe it is the responsibility of women or men to increase the representation of women in the professional world?\n\nDo you believe it is the responsibility of women or men to protect women from violence perpetrated by men? [for the purposes of this question the men who perpetrate the violence aren\u2019t included in \u201cmen\u201d because you\u2019ll never stop all crime so it\u2019s better to look at how to minimize the impact of the shitty acts that will inevitably happen than to try to make them not happen at all]\n\nAnd, finally, is it on men or women to just generally increase the \u201cstanding\u201d of women? I frequently hear discussion of how disadvantaged women are in the modern world, who is responsible for changing that?\n\nIf your answer to all of these questions was women, then you\u2019re consistent and I have no problems with your position. \n\nIf you answered anything other than these problems being the responsibility of women to fix, in what way are they different than the problem you\u2019ve proposed with this post?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p30i2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. If a woman is beat on the street I don't expect men to jump in. just call the police. Save yourself. Who cares. Representation should be based on merit. Nothing else..\n\nHowever some of the things you mention are societal and not individual happiness. Discrimination in workplace is something we should fix socially. Not personal relationships",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p239p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p2yqx",
                    "author": "Prestigious-Pay-6475",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t blame anyone for being single except myself. I\u2019m really lazy so going on dates is more of a deal than it is for people who go on them a lot. It\u2019s weird telling people that I\u2019ve turned down more girls than I\u2019ve been turned down by them because I don\u2019t consider myself super attractive or anything. I\u2019ve also had more sex than relationships. Im not a player either. Getting serious about dating now feels weird but I\u2019m glad I\u2019m doing it. Instead of 1-2 dates a year I\u2019ve started asking people every week. We\u2019ll see how it goes but at least my odds are a lot better now.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p31et",
                    "author": "rhubarbs",
                    "body": "Many men claim they face negative consequences in relationships, whether romantic or platonic, when they do \"speak up.\"\n\nAccording to feminism, this is an aspect toxic masculinity.\n\nSo should women, for their part, not perpetuate toxic masculinity by reacting negatively to when men do open up about their problems? Arguably, yes.\n\nThe problem is, the preference for men who embody the stoic strongman provider may be innate, and something both men and women prefer especially when material and social conditions are stressful.\n\nIt might not be a behavior we can change.\n\nWhat we should address though, on a societal level, is the preference falsification. We should not advertise this as a positive feature if it leads to negative outcomes, and pretend we want men who open up, if in actuality we do not.\n\nWe also have this societal message that every individual has innate value. If no one is willing to give the lonely men any attention, even platonic, then do they have innate value?\n\nIf our social contract comes with ideals we do not actually hold, following which leads to negative outcomes, the likely outcome is defection from this contract.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3ddu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "What feminists? I think that's my issue I don't get. I see so many personal anecdotes but no proof of any \n\nAnd how do you prove people falsify what they want \n\nAnd I personally don't think anyone has innate value in that way.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p31et"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3e7o",
                    "author": "reflected_shadows",
                    "body": "Then there\u2019s nothing wrong with men who are picky and find the women unsuitable. Why should men have lower standards? I\u2019m sure there are studies verifying that single men are happier than men with incompatible partners.\n\nObviously, I agree with you however I find that many people with your view get mad when men have standards or types or don\u2019t want to date someone they find unattractive or only want fwbs and hookups - it\u2019s fine for women to do all of it but when a man does it, he must be destroyed.\n\nI say treat everyone equally and if you\u2019re the unsuitable one, then become suitable or lower your standards or remain single. Too many unsuitable people (all genders) are a 3 wanting to date 10s.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3i0h",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I don't know if you think the first paragraph is a gotcha but why not",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p3e7o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3ge3",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "This is the worst [Fresh Topic Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16i0nla/cmv_womens_dating_standards_arent_too_low_but/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ever.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p442x",
                    "author": "Key_Independent1",
                    "body": "If every woman decided to stay single humans wouldn't exist",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p4606",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "And?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p442x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p4blk",
                    "author": "WhyJeSuisHere",
                    "body": "The basic premise of this is wrong. There is obviously nothing wrong with people having \u201cstandards\u201d whatever it may be. If you only want to date billionaire in their 20s that are super good looking, funny, smart etc\u2026 you can only blame yourself if you are single, so no, there is nothing wrong with that simply a personal choice. The male loneliness epidemic on the other hand is not an individual issue, but a societal one. It\u2019s not the responsibility of women or men to solve, but the responsibility of our society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p4wb2",
                    "author": "archival_assistant13",
                    "body": "The economy is terrible and although marriage can still be a means of social mobility for some, marriage itself is no longer as economically beneficial as it was before. You will literally be poor together, and many people do not want that extra stress on top of emotional incompatibility. I would say people should be steering towards being picky about their marriage partners, as they\u2019re supposed to support you and make your life easier (emotionally/financially/sexually etc), otherwise it would\u2019ve been better to remain single.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p5hv2",
                    "author": "newkid155",
                    "body": "There isn't a rise in single men there's a rise in single people.  Gen z is having less sex than previous generations, communication is at an all time low and connection is fading.  Humanity at large has a huge problem and one of its causes is right in the palm of your hand as you read this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p6fll",
                    "author": "Superfreakologist",
                    "body": "It's actually the best thing we could do for society. Every species changes due to mating pressures.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0retwz",
                    "author": "Sidian",
                    "body": "I take it you're a big fan of eugenics, then? \n\nWhat's being selected for here is height and facial symmetry and such, not intelligence or morality or anything useful in the modern age.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p6fll"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p6x8r",
                    "author": "jakeofheart",
                    "body": "The gene pool has become [broader and better](https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Gene-Pool). \n\nThey say that [80% of women in History](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=912673) have had an offspring.\n\nToday, it is estimated that [45% of women will be single by 2030](https://medium.com/hello-love/study-predicts-45-of-women-will-be-single-by-2030-1fbc99bad6a8#).\n\nSo if there is a better calibre of men that there was 50, 100 or 150 years ago, from a purely statistical perspective, women are being significantly more picky than their foremothers if they end up single.\n\nOr they don\u2019t know how or where to be found by the calibre of man that they want.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pr1zi",
                    "author": "LaMadreDelCantante",
                    "body": "Forced dependence on men, through legal and societal pressure, meant women historically haven't had the *option* to be picky. That's what's changed. Men actually have to bring something to the relationship besides just being gainfully employed and not horribly deformed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p6x8r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p75bd",
                    "author": "BenevelotCeasar",
                    "body": "I feel like the issue isn\u2019t the ethical responsibility that you should date down or something.\n\nBut go ahead and think about what happens to a society with a large population of angry, lonely, bitter, financially struggling men without an outlet? Uh\u2026. Rising fascist tendencies anyone? \n\nIt\u2019s a problem to address bc societal stability is not guaranteed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p7dmo",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So women should date down just to appease angry fascists",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k0p75bd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p7he9",
                    "author": "ChicknSoop",
                    "body": "In my opinion, its not that women should \"lower their standards\", but it comes off insanely hypocritical when we don't shame women for not dating guys who are \"too big, too short, too poor\", but then turn around and shame guys for not dating women and say they are misogynistic for doing the same thing.\n\nThe fact is, is that if men are going to be shamed for having standards, then so should women. It's a huge double standard.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qwi35",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p7he9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8edg",
                    "author": "Smith_mark5522",
                    "body": "The problem is when women's \"pickiness\" becomes dysfunction. Modern women have the the female equivalent of social media induced porn brain. None hyper stimuli men are invisible to them because they are frazzled by attention on dating apps and the beautiful people on social media.     \n\nThis is causing them to fall into toxic situations where a small amount of attractive but psychopathic men use them as glorified masturbatory age and waste their fertility window in unfulfilling loveless situationships/ soft harems.   \n\nThis will have devastating demographic implications down stream, demoralises the most productive people (young men) and cause or liberal advanced democracies to be replaced by authoritarian theocracies (the only groups free of these issues).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u2h7d",
                    "author": "offgridman1",
                    "body": "This should be top post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8edg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8ham",
                    "author": "parkway_parkway",
                    "body": "I think one thing is that technology and dating patterns matter, as well as personal choices.\n\nImagine the main dating app everyone uses is called \"sprinter\" and the only thing you're allowed to have on your profile is your time in a 100m sprint and your gender.\n\nWell a lot of women go on and get too many responses, so they filter them down, and the main reasonable filter to apply is to pick the fastest men, just because there is no other criteria to go on.\n\nIt's not that women hugely love 100m times or that's a major criteria or they have anything against the other men, it's just that all things being equal most women would prefer a healthy, fast, man to a slow one (who might be overweight or ill etc).\n\nIn this situation a lot of disabled men would be completely screened out when actually, if they got to know someone, they might be really nice.\n\nSame if you had a dating app called \"heighter\" where the only thing on the profile is height, basically all the short men are going to get screened out. Not because they're bad people and not because women are doing anything wrong, just because you have to screen on something and given very limited information you use what you have.\n\nSo yeah that's one of the issues with apps based on photos, the men with poor photos all get screened out. When really they might be great people if given a chance. \n\nThere's also another issue with app based dating and instagram based dating which is that it's very easy to see men as a disposable commodity and not give them a proper chance. After all there's always more just a click away so why bother with this particular one?\n\nSo yeah I think even if a woman keeps all their preferences and thresholds the same the way that people meet and which order different filters are applied and how many other options there are changes the outcome a lot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15tbiv",
                    "author": "jasmine-blossom",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve always said that I\u2019d likely never have dated my bf if all I had to go off of was a profile that he created with his selfies and his written profile. \n\nMost men aren\u2019t creating desirable digital images of themselves by which women can see them in their best light, but women\u2019s dating apps generally do present them in the best light. \n\nMy bf would have had a few bad-looking photos and some jokes about movies I\u2019ve never seen and don\u2019t care about. On the screen, he would have looked like yet another uninteresting loser.\n\nIn person, he is charming and kind and smart and has many wonderful friendship and relationship qualities. He still doesn\u2019t have the skills needed to represent that on a dating app.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8ham"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8pky",
                    "author": "Illustrious_Ring_517",
                    "body": "Just don't be mad when they go over to another country to find love",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pb32d",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why would I be mad?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8pky"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8ssv",
                    "author": "Life-Outlook-31",
                    "body": "Of course.\n\n\ud83d\udcb5 \ud83d\udcb5 \ud83d\udcb5",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8xf8",
                    "author": "throwaway1276444",
                    "body": "If you are referring to the research cited in Paul Dolan's book on married women? The dude \"misinterpreted\" the data. He had to redact it later, and now every tom, dick and harry runs with this notion, because it is politically expedient for them. \n\nMarried women only reported being less happy, when they were separated from their husbands, not when he left the room. Overall research shows that married couples are happier than non married. Although parents seem to be less happier than non parents (They do however show greater life satisfaction). Something that I understand as a dad, since having kids is hard work, but also very fulfilling. \n\nAs for lonely men, generally nobody is blaming women, but more trying to figure out, why it is happening? There are many ideas floating around and some might land, unfavourably on women's evolutionary psychology. It still doesn't blame them, just a guess at explaining the issue. Solving does require society to help uplift men, make them more desirable to women. It's not a zero sum game, with winners and losers. It helps everyone. \n\nJust as an example, when crime statistics in my country were released by country of origin, it made certain nationalities seem like they were inherently more criminal. So everyone jumped on the bandwagon of calling minorities criminals. \n\nBut when the same statistics were controlled for different factors, it turned out that the numbers started to even out, if number of men living without a family were taken into account. So basically having women, children, parents and grandparents around made these men far less likely to commit crime. \n\nI am not conservative in my way of life at all, however I do have to accepts that there is a reason most cultures have promoted yoking men early in life, in order to create a more peaceful society. How we do this today, is a problem to be solved and having women join the debate is also important, as it affects you too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rszkr",
                    "author": "ricebasket",
                    "body": "Yeah there\u2019s danger living in a society with a bunch of socially unattached men. \n\nI dunno what to do about it, but it\u2019s not a comfortable thought.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8xf8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p94rj",
                    "author": "HannibalsGoodEye",
                    "body": "Women aren\u2019t too picky at all, standards are great. My problem is simply meeting them in the first place, feeling like I have options. I\u2019m not allowed to start a conversation with a woman I don\u2019t know lest I be classified as an entitled asshole interrupting your day. I can get 1 promising match/week on bumble or hinge or feeld but I\u2019m awkward at starting virtual conversations and women are only responding to the top 3 vibes of the 100 conversation starters they get. My problem is a lot of women actually like me but I\u2019m not allowed to approach, I have to be passive and wait to be picked. And of course I get ghosted constantly but when a woman gets ghosted once woohoo all men are trash etc.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0paqfg",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I agree double standards are bad but double standards existing doesn't mean all women are at fault and should change just to make up for the trash ones",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p94rj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0payap",
                    "author": "Sc00tzy",
                    "body": "Women aren\u2019t lowering their standards in this generation, men are. In fact most men are staying single because of the disparity. Reading some of your replies you just seem like the pinnacle of the problem where you feel you don\u2019t owe anyone the most basic of respect. Just saying hi to someone is a problem for you? I think your issues are more of a you issue than a woman issue. Frankly you sound miserable so I hope you stop projecting your issues and are able to get some help.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w5y24",
                    "author": "Euphoric__Artist",
                    "body": "This is such a lie, such a huge lie that has been disproven time and time again and y\u2019all still deep throat it harder than Andrew Taints\u2026 well\u2026 you can fill in the rest",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0payap"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pdx2t",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "I agree with your general idea. However, as men and women age they tend to change and can often (but not always) come to regret they didn't build a home with someone. I say this as someone whose childhood dream was to be a hermit who happily spent life very much alone until their early 40s. I never pursued a relationship. It just kind of happened and only later did I decide it was worth committing to. \n\nI never fell in love or needed company. I enjoyed my own company. However, after building a loving relationship with my wife I now see what I was missing. Before, I never had a loving committed relationship. Now I can see the value in it. \n\nSo you are right to encourage people to pursue their own way in life. I would just say that people should really consider what they might be giving up.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15xqyp",
                    "author": "jasmine-blossom",
                    "body": "Most of us have had relationships already, even loving ones. We aren\u2019t into it. It doesn\u2019t work for us. The one relationship format devised by patriarchy to control women and ensure paternity inheritance does not work for many of us. It never did.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pdx2t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0peo0w",
                    "author": "RageAndWar",
                    "body": "How do you decide wether someone is worth talking to or not? If a guy walks up to you at a bar and tries to start a conversation, what tells you if you should engage or not? Is it his appearance? Is it how clean he looks? Is it how much money you think he\u2019s worth? Is it the first thing he says to you?\n\nMany women would likely answer this question in a variety of ways. Many women just look at whether he\u2019s attractive or not. Many will try to determine his net worth and base their reaction of that. Many others will listen to what he says and choose whether to respond. The only real consistency in answers would be that they make their decision after they\u2019ve made their judgement. This is mainly because of the shift in the feminist mindset that has been growing over time. Women are told that the man has to earn their time, that he has to provide something of value right off the bat. I\u2019m not saying this is a bad thing, it\u2019s just how things are.\n\nMen, on the other hand, tend to respond differently. If a woman walks up and tries talking to a man, he will most often reciprocate, before making judgement. Usually, they will determine their decision on wether or not to pursue a relationship during the conversation. Men feel that they are obligated to validate a woman\u2019s actions, because they are also told that they have to earn them. Men are expected to provide some value, which is why many of them become fixated on making a lot of money. \n\nSo, we have two very different approaches to meeting new people. There is merit to both of these approaches, and some criticism. Knowing your worth and understanding that you deserve to be treated well is a virtue in any person. We should all desire to be with the best person for us. The issue lies with trying to make judgement before you really get the chance to know the person. Your ideal man may have approached you already, he just wasn\u2019t looking very good that day. (That\u2019s a general \u201cyou\u201d, not you specifically, btw)\n\nOn the other hand, it is important to know that you also have to provide value in any relationship. You should be your best self for your best partner. This is the mindset that is pushed onto men, so they often internalize it. \nThis becomes an issue when you become so focused on your worth that you:\n\n1. Lose a lot of self esteem because you feel that you\u2019re never good enough.\n\n2. Lower your standards to just find any relationship because you feel that you can only obtain the bare minimum.\n\n3. Start viewing other men in the same way, that if they aren\u2019t making a lot of money, own a lot of expensive things, etc. that you are not a real man. This is the kind of thing people like Andrew Tate talk about a lot.\n\nI think the key is finding balance. If you think you are too good for everyone, you really miss out on a lot of potential happiness. Even some of the \u201cbad\u201d relationships I\u2019ve been in have at least taught me about what I do and don\u2019t find important in a relationship. I still enjoy the good times I\u2019ve had with them. This is not about abusive relationships, by the way. If your partner is abusing you, absolutely leave that person. \n\nOn the other hand, if you feel that you are never good enough for anyone, you\u2019ll just be very unhappy and lonely. Many men are victims of this. \n\nSo, men and women are being told the same thing, which affects both sides differently. Men have to earn the woman, a woman shouldn\u2019t have to settle, it\u2019s the man\u2019s job to make the woman want him. \n\nAs I mentioned earlier, this mindset compounds from their respective communities. Women tell each other that they are worth the greatest men in the world. They are valuable simply by their existence. Men tell each other that they have to make themselves desirable by any means necessary, usually money, because they aren\u2019t inherently worth very much. You see the problem.\n\nI think the real remedy is what I believe to be the remedy for many of our societal issues. We need common ground, understanding, and cooperation. Men and women are all valuable, just by being themselves. We should absolutely look out for ourselves and find someone we truly want to be with, but this often happens by being open-minded and willing to learn from your relationships. I know I\u2019ve dated women who I wasn\u2019t really attracted to at first, but the more I talked to them, the more I found I genuinely like their company. I think everyone deserves a chance, but that chance is their responsibility.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pf7ag",
                    "author": "Extension-Advance822",
                    "body": "I agree. Just apply that to men as well and we have no issue.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r6neg",
                    "author": "ECGMoney",
                    "body": "Yup. If \u201cwomen can\u2019t have abortions, and that\u2019s not men\u2019s\u2019 problem\u201d is a stance the majority of women actually get behind, I\u2019ll agree that male loneliness isn\u2019t women\u2019s\u2019 problem. Until then? Expecting us to give a shit about their problems is hypocritical.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pf7ag"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pfc47",
                    "author": "moutnmn87",
                    "body": "What you're complaining about happens a lot but the inverse where women complain about what is available in the dating pool is also very common. I very much dislike your framing of this as a problem that needs to be solved by anyone. I mean sure it is a major societal change that will have effects but I would argue a decrease in romantic relationships is not a problem in the first place although it could possibly be a symptom of problems in some individual cases. Everyone should be allowed to have standards and that includes having limits on how much one is willing to compromise on various things. Women or men not being willing or able to provide what people in the dating pool want is not a problem that needs to be solved by anyone. Being partnered with someone even if they happen to have goals that aren't very compatible with your own is really not something to aspire to. People really need to cool it with this idea that everyone needs a partner. Finding a partner should be about finding someone you happen to be compatible with not about twisting somebody's arm into becoming the partner you desire.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pggye",
                    "author": "Difficult_Mix_1870",
                    "body": "I agree with you completely, don't get me wrong but let's just make sure that those women are not the same who speak badly of men who marry younger or men who marry outside their country's borders because believe me when I say everyone has the right to live however they want with no judgment but it seems both sides of the gender spectrum are judging each other when it comes to such conversations with the other being against woman's standards and the other being against men's final choices for lifelong partners.\n\nAnd in all honesty, what you said about marriage might be true but for some women and that's only because of their age and beliefs, Younger people tend to be happy with that freedom but then the older they get they start to lose happiness in that freedom, The studies you read aren't conclusive, I use to think the same about marriage and taking shortcuts when it came to marital studies but a friend of mine said this when we were arguing, (I'm paraphrasing by the way) \n\n\"Take it from someone who observed this in real life with a lot of older woman in my neighborhood being single and my mother being a person who has been with my dad for over 20 years, And believe me when I say the difference in happiness is abnormally different, my mother always laughing, yelling and complaining about her family but still very happy to have us, We're not the richest, sometimes, we sleep with uncertainty of what we're gonna eat tomorrow and my parents don't always get along but after cooling off for a few hours they are the happiest people you'll ever meet, with some female neighbors actually envying my mom for her happiness and lusting for my dad, some even going as far as showing up at his place of work to market themselves to him and telling my mom lies about him being spotted with other women when we see him everyday, he doesn't go out, he doesn't have friends, let me not forget my aunt who celebrated that freedom but come age 35 swinging man to man looking for a man who's willing to commit to her it's been over 10 years and she's only found married men and just creepy a\\*\\*holes non of whom have committed to her, She receives a lot of money and has a stable job but thanks to the weird partners she's encountered and spent money on, her bank account is not ready for retirement.\"\n\nI first thought they were out of their mind but later confirmed the truth behind their statement as I grew closer with their family.\n\nSo I'm sorry but your take on marriage is inconclusive and might be based on people who have maybe been cheated on or experienced problems in the marriage where they expect the other partner to fix it and were unhappy when the other partner didn't fix it, It's really sad.\n\nI know I shouldn't rant on like this but take it from a loner who said they'll never date anyone ever again, Let's stop idealizing a lonely life for a happy life because you can become rich and live a superb life but like they say \"it's lonely at the top\" and people who genuinely live that high life tend to do whatever they want some even going as far as seducing married individuals as it excites them to see married or committed fools ruin their relationships for pleasure I practice H.R believe I've seen this more than once, I first started using the internet 2 years ago so I've had lots of time to observe this in real life and when I started accessing the internet for personal entertainment like social media, I was shocked to see how big of an issue unmarried individuals can be.\n\nDon't get me wrong I'm not saying this applies to everyone as some people are single for other reasons such as past traumas which makes them more happier when they are single and untouched and in control of their bodies, but a vast majority of the world's population knows exactly what I mean.\n\nAnd I'm not saying men are entitled to women's attention, I'm just saying let them have their standards but please be respectful of other people in your loneliness if you never find the perfect partner, The male demographic is reducing on this planet, and is very low in comparison to the female demographic, If every woman has that mindset of chasing the perfect men then believe me when I say most of them will end up single and sad as most of them have potentially set their standards to a potential only a few men can reach, you might find 20 females describing the perfect partner to be a man who is 1 amongst 20 men, it's impossible to satisfy them all.\n\nSo bottom line let's all have our standards and be respectful of the outcomes without shaming another demographic much like how I've seen women on YouTube and TikTok in their late 30's to 40's publicly shaming men who marry younger and those who have come to be known as the \"Passport Bro's\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0phf12",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Prsftt much agree with all. My only issue is (some) passport bros are also hypocrites. Claim western women are gold diggers and generalizing but then not realizing some foreign women just wanna marry them for their stronger western currency.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pggye"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pgkdf",
                    "author": "Cyberhwk",
                    "body": "> Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men?\n\nAnd that's why men are usually emotionally unavailable and internalize our feelings.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0phrah",
                    "author": "SteadfastEnd",
                    "body": "There's a difference between picky and **unreasonably picky.**",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchn5ik",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "Women are both",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0phrah"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pi1sc",
                    "author": "zaph239",
                    "body": "The whole premise of this is massively flawed because it is based on a false assumption. That all women have power in the sexual marketplace and can therefore be picky. The brutal reality, that feminist and women refuse to face, is sex is driven by reproduction.\n\nMillions of years of evolution have shaped our mating strategies and in the case of men it has shaped them to desire young and fertile women. So sure a 20 year old women will have her pick of men but a 40 or 50 year old women? No so much.\n\nThat is why the female rage movement, feminism, keeps growing. If women were really happy with the current dating situation, there wouldn't be such a huge female rage movement.\n\nFeminine rage is driven by the fact women age, they lose their looks and fertility. \n\nMy point is, the society you outline simply isn't possible. Young women can be picky, old and middle aged women can't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r2mq1",
                    "author": "ChaosRainbow23",
                    "body": "Lol. \n\nThis is some grade 'A' dude-bro manosphere nonsense, right here!",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pi1sc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0piuw6",
                    "author": "BarriaKarl",
                    "body": "Are they picky with their man, tho?\n\nBecause from where I stand more and more women are just fucking around with hunks. A lot of them rather be a side chick, or a temporary fling than choose a guy with a 6 score but that works hard.\n\nThere is a difference between 'we are just choosing the best for us' and 'we just fuck the 1% of men'.\n\nThe first? Go girl. The second? Well, look around.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rjuh7",
                    "author": "VeronaApproacheth",
                    "body": "And so what? Those may be their standards. So it shouldn't be an issue and goes back to what OP was saying : that women get to be picky in ways that make sense to them and don't necessarily make sense to you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0piuw6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pjg1j",
                    "author": "Charlea1776",
                    "body": "Yes. It is actually on each of us to make people feel like part of the community. Romance aside, we are social creatures that many have been raised to not be social.\n\nIn my experience at nearly 40 now, men are explicitly taught that being emotional, a perfectly natural, absolutely existent part of being human, will make them weak.\n\nThen, when you finally get through to them about expressing themselves, they might take a few years to figure it out.\n\nFrom a young age, women are taught how to talk about their feelings, no explicitly, but by experience because no one thwarts the instinct to do so.\n\nI want to say it's getting better, but I have friends with sons in school. By the end of the first year, their open, honest kid just stops talking about it. Sometimes it is because they cried at school because they fell or got teased, and THEN kids ridiculed them for crying! \n\nSo they learn to shut down to protect themselves. \n\nWhere as friends with school-age girls, their daughter cries and her friends rush over and people want to make her feel better and they express to their moms how nice their friends are.\n\nThat's on each and every one of us to put forth some effort to help. In doing so, everything you mentioned will improve. Don't get me wrong, some people clash and simply butt heads and do not mesh well, but most of the time, the other 8 people do get along with both of the other 2. So be supportive. \n\nIf someone tells you they are just stressed, don't take their inability to communicate personally. Ask if they just want to sit and hang out or take their mind off things for a bit. You're there for them. Hopefully, you gain enough clout that one day, they feel safe enough to tell you without fear of you telling everyone. It's not intentional. It's instinct from their entire life.\n\nBy no means do you put up with being treated like shit either. You say it clearly and calmly that behavior is mean. You didn't do anything to warrant it. You don't know what is going on with them, but communication is how you get through it, not treating me like that. I need some space now. We can talk when you have had some time to think (if you are comfortable with that last part). Anger in response to it only begets more anger. Lead by example and all of that. Outside of a rare occasion, you should recognize what you are actually seeing is a trauma response. While you did nothing wrong, again it isn't personal and you have to know that. It isn't fair, but life isn't always fair, yet we can do things to help balance those scales. Just by being a good human and nothing to do with relationships on a romantic level. People need to be able to be prior to being able to be together with someone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pjhm5",
                    "author": "SweetMojaveRain",
                    "body": "The thing is that its 6\u2019s and 5\u2019s holding out for 9\u2019s and 8\u2019s.\n\nWhen the 6/10 woman dates a 6/10 man, she thinks shes \u201csettling\u201d\n\nNo girlypop, thats your level.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q28y2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Who counts the numbers though?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pjhm5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pkfhh",
                    "author": "TomGNYC",
                    "body": "I think, in general, it's healthy to try things, to expand your friend group, to date, to learn how to talk to different genders and develop those skills. As an introvert, it really took me a long time to learn how to talk to women, to develop relationship skills, to spend quality time with them without feeling out of my element. I definitely spent a lot of time avoiding it out of fear of rejection and fear of complication and difficulty. It also takes a lot of time to figure out what you really want in a relationship and what type of person you want to be with. \n\nSo, for me, it depends a lot on the situation and motivation. If a woman (or a man) is avoiding relationships out of fear, I'd say it's a bad. I'd hate to think of women not living the lives they want out of fear. If, on the other hand, it's what they truly want, whether they're just not remotely interested, or maybe have a great passion for something else that isn't conducive to relationships, then clearly there's nothing wrong with that. \n\nIt has nothing to do with what men feel like they need, though. Women should try to follow a path that is the most healthy, happy, and rewarding for them. Men should do the same. It's only that way that the relationship works, anyway. If one or both parties are unhappy with their lives, the relationship is doomed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0plp26",
                    "author": "Coarse_bunny",
                    "body": "Whats bad is it feels unfair when someone equally as boring talks to me then doesent like me anymore for being just as boring.I understand that youre not attracted romantically or platonically to someone but why am i not allowed to be my regular self while others are.In my experience,venting and talking about things i found interesting only turned others off while i put a lot of effort into humouring and encouraging others doing the same.Its not women's fault because its done by men too but women are nicer about it.Its just really annoying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm1nk",
                    "author": "Responsible-End7361",
                    "body": "Amusingly this was right under the survey showing 75% of young women won't date a Trump voter.\n\nI think a lot of the anger is from a small group of guys who have made themselves unattractive to almost any woman by their attitude and their opinions on women's rights.  Yes, most Trump voters are older, but the younger ones are especially toxic, which is why women avoid them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pmdps",
                    "author": "Parking-Ad-5211",
                    "body": "Or that that survey was biased.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pm1nk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm4u4",
                    "author": "IbuKondo",
                    "body": "While I won't argue one way or the other, I will say that antisocial behavior has been rising steadily ever since the internet was conceived.\n\nNot to mention there's a pretty big movement of \"feminists\" that just hate men. Not all, and I wouldn't even say the majority. But enough of them to just say feminists, to take a line out of their book.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm5gd",
                    "author": "Parking-Ad-5211",
                    "body": "I feel like this would depend on what ways they are picky. If they are picky as in will not date anyone who doesn't make $150,000+/year and/or will only date men over 6' tall or something, then it says something about the society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm9fo",
                    "author": "TikiTDO",
                    "body": "Honestly, the problem is our culture and society is not sure what roles to assign to men and to women. We have taught men to essentially ignore all emotional signals in favour of of being a stoic supporter of the family. This the the stereotype and idea that is blasted all over our media. Of course the net result is when it does come time to show emotion, most men are essentially emotionally stunted children, because that's what our society creates. If you leave a young boy watching our media and playing our games, these are they lessons they learn, because this is what most people want to see.\n\nAll those men that don't know any better; that's just how they turn out these days. In turn most of the men that are more emotionally mature are largely the result of someone, somewhere putting in the effort to teach the guy some better lessons, and most often that someone is going to be a spouse, though occasionally it might be a parent. Basically, you want people who have had proper emotional development, which in turn means they have taken the time to learn.\n\nSo already you want to select from among people that someone has already spent time and emotional labour on, but in a lot of cases those men are already with people, so either you accept that you're not likely to find the type of person you want and you will need to invest your time and effort getting someone to the point where you can live with them, or you adopt a parasitic lifestyle, seeking out men that are already valued and trying to take them.\n\nAt the same time, for the past century women have been getting more rights and powers. Throughout history the type of archetype that men value has been desired, but over the last century things have rapidly changed. We are now teaching girls a lot more about conflict resolution, power games, and high stakes negotiations. At the same time girls still have a much higher level of emotional maturity throughout their childhood, and given the more group-based nature of female communication, they will also get a chance to learn lessons in both the emotional as well as the practical fields.\n\nIn other words, come time to pick a life partner, women are currently starting off from a much more advanced spot. Of course it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to date someone with the emotional maturity half your age, but in practice all that really means is you have a higher probability to fall for a older, more mature, possibly married guy. This in turn reinforces the issue, because in truth nobody wants many of the man that the last few decades have spit out.\n\nOh, and as for emotional maturity. A lot of time when people speak of that what they really mean is that the other person obeys all the unspoken social rules real well. In other words usually it's really social maturity that you're measuring; how good is the guy at acting out in public, and how comfortable to you feel being around them. When men are genuinely in touch with their and open with their emotions that genuinely puts people off, unless that man is very, very close.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pn17v",
                    "author": "xDendretic",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s healthy to be able to have standards, but the reality is if we swing too hard with unrealistic standards (not saying men don\u2019t also have unrealistic standards) women will be the one paying the price. In all fairness this shouldn\u2019t be put on women, but at the end of the day might makes right and men will be the be the majority force that is fighting. If women began to only date the top 30%, 20%, 10% of men? You\u2019d see a large rise in incels and right wing conservatism that promote women being homebodies or are forced to care for children. I mean we\u2019re already starting to see the right to choose taken away and I expect more things slowly being taken away in the future (this won\u2019t happen overnight).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pnw9r",
                    "author": "stewartm0205",
                    "body": "Only if they are so picky that most don't get married and have children and that society slowly diminishes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0po03a",
                    "author": "RealDrugDealer",
                    "body": "I mean plenary of all their animal species do it so I wouldn\u2019t see why it\u2019s particular weird for human females to do it. It\u2019s literally ingrained in their DNA to choose the male with the best traits to pass on to their children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0po3ij",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Complaining about getting a bad result for an attempt at being kind is pretty standard for both sexes. \n\nFor example, women who make an effort to work extra hard at work with the hopes they'll get a promotion at work and get passed over may complain that their bosses suck, and that their workplace sucks.\n\nDoes their boss suck? Is their workplace unsuitable? Maybe, maybe not. But it's pretty normal complaining, and most people would look at you weirdly if you said \"If managers are picky that just means that women aren't suitable for promotion.\" Some women, and managers, are unreasonable, some are not, and it's reasonable for people who get rejected to be unhappy and complain.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pofw5",
                    "author": "objectdisorienting",
                    "body": "I think it is worth examining the wider societal factors that are leading more and more people to feel isolated, alienated and lonely, and while I think this is a somewhat universal problem, gender and gender roles play into it. I'm going to focus on the general problem and the Male side of the coin, because I understand it the best and it's most relevant to your view.\n\nIn the US, rates of depression have been trending up for a long time. Self reported happiness and wellbeing have been dropping. Suicides have gone up.\n\nThere's a lot of causes. But I think Social media in particular has done a great deal of work in making people feel more disconnected from others, because it acts as a substitute for social interaction that simultaneously is addictive and falls short of the real thing. I also think the window shopping, commodified nature of dating apps compounds this problem, as does the decline of institutions that previously provided a sense of community, such as churches (I say this as an atheist). Moreover, I think that there has been a general trend towards people thinking of social relationships in more transactional terms. COVID compounded all these problems.\n\nIn our current society, both men and women judge the worth of a man by their ability to find a partner. If you're a virgin or otherwise haven't had much romantic success as a man, you will be constantly surrounded by messages that this is something that is inherenly shameful. Additionally, men on average have higher libidos than women (there's tons of variance obviously) and tend to have sexual thoughts more often. If you're a man who feels lonely, isolated and disconnected from the world, these factors are more likely to make you feel like your lack of ability to find a partner is not only one part of the problem, but the entire problem. This compounds with sexual frustration often getting emotionally mixed up with general frustration at loneliness and isolation.\n\nI want to pause for a moment and talk about incels, the redpill, and pickup artists. The majority of men who feel lonely and isolated, even those who blame it on their lack of romantic success usually don't think it's a conspiracy by women, they blame it on themselves. Incel, PUA and redpill types are the vocal, very obnoxious minority. However, the reason these people have gained a following is because they are both empathetic to lonely men, and sometimes promise them a way out. It's ultimately a grift, but it's an effective grift because it manipulates emotionally vulnerable people who otherwise get very little sympathy.\n\nUltimately, I think collectively as a society we need to rethink our relationship with social media. We need focus on forming connections in real life and recapturing a lost sense of community with each other.\n\nSo to respond to your view directly, individual women making the choice to stay single isn't wrong, but the macro trend is part of a body of evidence pointing towards unhealthy changes in our society that we should be talking about and thinking about. These changes are not the fault of women specifically, but of technology and cultural changes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pqdzk",
                    "author": "noyrb1",
                    "body": "Who\u2019s calling for lower standards? I think there\u2019s plenty of career women with a beach bum or ex convict sleeping at their house all day while they work lol",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ps224",
                    "author": "BerryBogFrog",
                    "body": "My boyfriend's cousin is one of these single men who blame women for his being single. He has not had a girlfriend since the early 2000s, why? It's because of his personality and expectations. \n\nHe is in his mid 40s, he blames things like gamer gate and \"me too\" for his problems. He has had chances to date women in his RP groups and online games, but he turns them down with various reasons such as \"too fat\" \"ugly\" \"tattoos\"  \"dyed hair\" \"too old\" etc. \n\nHis ideal woman is young (early 20s/late teens), no tattoos or piercings,  light skin, and preferably Japanese. He wants a woman he can groom to cook and clean for him the way his mother does.\n\nHe also constantly talks down to women and mansplains things.\n\nHes funny, smart, is not a bad looking guy, and has a nice phat ass, but its 100% his personality and how he views women that makes him single.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15wr93",
                    "author": "jasmine-blossom",
                    "body": "Yup. I\u2019ve talked to A LOT of these men and most of the time, they do not want to go to therapy and they do not want to work on their misogyny and entitlement issues. They see that some other guys have managed to get laid and married without working on themselves and are jealous they couldn\u2019t do it and they blame women for it. They refuse to work on themselves at all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ps224"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ps3cb",
                    "author": "paradox037",
                    "body": "IMO the real issue is not the high standards women appear to have, but the inconsistency and misrepresentation of what is truly expected of men to deserve a relationship. People get understandably upset and muddy the conversational waters, but the real issue is the lack of a straight answer to the question \"WTF do you want from me?\"\n\nNearly every actionable standard men are seemingly expected to meet is simultaneously a deal-breaker for most women. We're at a crossroads in the predominant culture shift in which men simultaneously have to meet both old and new expectations, *even when they're mutually exclusive*. For example, men are told to be vulnerable, then are immediately judged as unmanly and therefore unattractive for it, and/or have that moment of vulnerability viciously exploited down the line for leverage or even simply to inflict pain.\n\nThe expectations men are being held to aren't just high, they're fundamentally impossible to meet. And since men are raised to believe that their desirability to women is synonymous with their value as people (although their value is usually framed on the left side of the equal sign, in contrast to women's), that leaves women holding the keys to men's success, and therefore enforcing the standards. It's not fair to either party, and that's precisely why a society with this issue is fundamentally flawed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pse5a",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Isn't the issue that people are not monoliths? Of course there is contradictions. I mean no offense but kind of your *general you fault if you actually believed if someone tells you women like zyz therefore all do",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ps3cb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0psv5m",
                    "author": "Canteaman",
                    "body": "Are women picky though? It's been my experience that they are not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ptcxu",
                    "author": "Fresh-South2943",
                    "body": "There are problems that result from it, you can look to China to see what happens when men don't have partners. Higher crime, unhappiness, suicide rates, etc... Women obviously still have the right to choose despite all that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pttg9",
                    "author": "lumberjack_jeff",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong from women's perspective, certainly.\n\nHowever, the same thing could be said from men's perspective about a society 100 years ago in which women can't vote or own property.\n\nIf a society isn't working for one sex, the other doesn't have sole moral authority to explain why it's just fine.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r67bo",
                    "author": "ECGMoney",
                    "body": "This is 100% on point. If \u201cmen can\u2019t find love, sorry, that\u2019s not women\u2019s\u2019 problem!\u201d Is the stance we\u2019re considering acceptable, then the following are acceptable stances for men by the exact same logic:\n\n\u201cWomen can\u2019t get abortions. Sorry, not my problem.\u201d \n\n\u201cWage gap. Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cWomen facing harassment in the workplace from their coworkers. Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cSingle mom can\u2019t pay her bills? Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cWoman pay higher prices/have to pay for female hygiene products? Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\nWhy should any man ever give half-a-shit about a female-centric problem when male-specific problems are laughed at and spat on?\n\nThese types of stances are selfish, divisive, and terrible for society. It\u2019s unhealthy to give absolutely 0 shits about the other genders\u2019 problems, but here we are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pttg9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pu0m5",
                    "author": "RadioFreeAmerika",
                    "body": "In the end, we are all better off caring about each other instead of being atomized even further until no one has any agency left anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pudp7",
                    "author": "uniqueusername316",
                    "body": "\"People act like...\", \"A lot of men...\", \"How can you act like...\", \"You just don't make effort...\", \"...often people talk about...\"\n\nWHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT/TO? Please talk to these people directly and instead of ambiguously ranting into the void of reddit.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0punjv",
                    "author": "suiluhthrown78",
                    "body": "I believe the research shows that that the happies are married men, then married women, then there's a gap and then its single women and then single men\n\nSo if its societal happiness you're aiming for then more people getting married to each other would be the way to get there",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0putps",
                    "author": "101ina45",
                    "body": "I think I'll have a unique view as a man in this one.\n\nBackground: I'm a black, bi, agnostic, late 20's married man, white collar job, married (we're ethnically non-monogamous) and in the north east. I am not a \"masculine guy\". At 5'10 and 140 soaking wet, I'm rail thin. Based on the Andrew rate types, I should be a virgin in a basement. And yet, I had plenty of enjoyable hook ups and am now married to a wonderful woman.\n\nWhen I met my wife, we broke all the conventional rules of dating. Met her parents on the fourth date, didn't have sex for a few months (she was a virgin at the time), and she didn't do any of the \"traditional\" things like changing her last name.\n\nThis didn't bother me because I've never been a traditionalist.  Fast forward to now and on the ENM dating apps I've had the experience of talking to men on said apps (both straight and bi) and holy fuck, I understand now why so many women are happy single.\n\nOffensive language, dick pics from the jump, racism, etc. If you can think of it, I've seen it.\n\nA lot of guys really need to reflect on why no women (romantic or platonic) don't want to talk to them before they point the finger at an entire gender.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pv0vy",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I mean I'm glad someone understands but this doesn't change my view. Thanks for in put though",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0putps"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pva1p",
                    "author": "0k0n0miyaki",
                    "body": "This was a good one OP they are coping and seething in here hard",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtipe",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pva1p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pvx7u",
                    "author": "CINECITIZEN",
                    "body": "You shouldn\u2019t have to be 6 feet and make 200k to be treated like a human being\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1smy",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Uhh... People treat you like human. Just not a potential mate",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pvx7u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pvxe9",
                    "author": "0k0n0miyaki",
                    "body": "Comments are hilarious. When men are picky it\u2019s \u201cbiological hard wiring\u201d and when women are lucky it\u2019s the collapse of civilization",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1qg9",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah I've seen people being hypocrites when it comes to virgins",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pvxe9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pw048",
                    "author": "The_Mura",
                    "body": "In a sense, there is some onus on women to lower their standards, because the rise of dating apps has inflated women's standards to much higher than they previously were. I believe 100% that the male loneliness problem is an unintended consequence of dating apps. These apps provide a greater amount of selection than previously existed, and that greater selection leads to greater choosiness from women, resulting in less overall pairing up for everyone, since the women are all believe they deserve the nest men available. This is not a problem that men can solve on their own, because platonic friendship only goes so far. \n\nBut at the same time, it's true that we can't expect individuals to lower their standards. Many men, myself included, are just as guilty of being overly choosy, but I still think most would agree that women are still way choosier than men on average. If the problem is to be solved, then it HAS to involve women lowering their standards, and if that can't be done, then it is a problem that will continue to exist, and men will just have to get used to it, as they have done for pretty much every problem that men face. Society has never been keen on solving men's problems, so really this is just par for the course.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q4lm6",
                    "author": "Parking-Ad-5211",
                    "body": "A major issue I see especially but not only on Reddit is people assuming that every man who has issues dating is some misogynistic incel who is a ticking time bomb or something and everyone who is decent or better will never have those issues. It's a just world fallacy really.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pw048"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0px72b",
                    "author": "KrabbyMccrab",
                    "body": ">there's nothing wrong with society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single\n\nThere's a non-trivial correlation between single young men and crime rates. Having children lowers the testosterone levels in men, lowering aggressive behavior. Raising a family also fosters attachment to the community around you. Both lowering crime rates in the community. \n\nWhile it may not be WOMENS job to fix this, it's certainly UNHEALTHY for a society when there's a bunch of roaming young guys who simply don't give a fuck.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pxazn",
                    "author": "0k0n0miyaki",
                    "body": "Lots of weird equivalencias being made here between dating and getting access to human rights. \u201c if it\u2019s not a women\u2019s problem to make sure I have a girlfriend then it\u2019s not men\u2019s problem to make sure that women can work and vote\u201d. Ummmm\u2026 okay\u2026.. I guess\u2026..",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1i1m",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yup. Definitely weird for me",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pxazn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pxlvk",
                    "author": "RiffRandellsBF",
                    "body": "Do you complain about Leo dating <25 year old woman?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1fma",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. Not sure the relevance either",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pxlvk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pxs4s",
                    "author": "TrashApocalypse",
                    "body": "Yes, this is called evolution and we need it now more than ever.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rfp07",
                    "author": "Sidian",
                    "body": "If all we care about is humanity getting taller and having more symmetrical faces, then yes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pxs4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pykr2",
                    "author": "controllrevival",
                    "body": "I agree, and I do well with women so it\u2019s whatever to me. I will say that it is women\u2019s problem too though because a lot of lonely, single men are desperate and will act out. Now I don\u2019t think that women should lower their standards, but maybe something like prostitution should be legalized so that all these guys with all this sexual frustration can go there instead of shooting up places, etc",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q18dh",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Sure. I'm all for legalizing sex work",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pykr2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pz682",
                    "author": "End3rWi99in",
                    "body": "Yeah sure as long as this is true for men too. You don't have to be in a relationship if you don't want to be in one and you should absolutely not date anyone purely in the interest of not being lonely. Learn to love yourself and you'll never be lonely anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pz945",
                    "author": "FlickoftheTongue",
                    "body": "While in principal there's nothing wrong with your title statement, the issue arises when people have criteria that is so exclusive that very few people on planet earth meet that criteria.\n\nLet's remove gender from the equation really quickly. There is nothing on planet earth that you can get 100% of your wants and not compromise in any way shape or for. What we are seeing now is a rise of Individuals so unwilling to compromise on criteria that is frankly not that important that they are excluding out basically an entire group. That said, those who choose to remain single, thats their choice. Those that want a relationship that won't tolerate any deviation from their standard, that exhibit things that violate their same standard or are toxic, particularly when It comes to behavioral things, are living in fantasy land.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pzbdw",
                    "author": "atred",
                    "body": ">People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix.\n\nWho? Seems to me like a strawman, but then again, there are many idiots in the world, I'm sure you could find an example, but the question is, is this a prevalent view? If it's not why worry about it?\n\n>Should women change their behaviour?\n\nIf they are happy with their choices they should definitely not change anything. If they are not happy with their choices they should re-examine them. I think this is pretty straight forward. Groups of people should not be responsible for the happiness of other groups -- people at most can work to keep themselves and their loved ones content and even that is hard work sometime.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tf16u",
                    "author": "Regular-Chapter-7101",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not actually a straw man nor is it the responsibility of just a couple of idiots. Many articles when talking about men\u2019s loneliness seem to blame the rise in single men insinuating that a relationship would solve a man\u2019s loneliness.\n\nThey look at romantic relationships with women to solve it more than friendships with either gender",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pzbdw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pzr5v",
                    "author": "eidhrmuzz",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t want to change your core view.  Cause.. people should live how they want to live as long as it doesn\u2019t cause harm.  And anyone choosing a single life isn\u2019t harming. \n\nBut as far as individual basis goes\u2026. It\u2019s good to be kind to a lonely person of any gender or sex.  You know.  As long as they\u2019re not a giant douche bag and doing so causes you harm.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q2m4w",
                    "author": "Ill-Discussion7043",
                    "body": "No, we live in a society where a growing number of women sacrifice their fertile years for the sake of their job/career.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q40uq",
                    "author": "GB-Pack",
                    "body": "> If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women\n\nI\u2019ll start by stating this isn\u2019t a problem that can be solved by men or women alone and rather is a societal issue that won\u2019t be easy to solve. Beauty and dating standards have evolved very quickly since the inception of the internet and these standards are often unrealistic or unattainable. Standards aren\u2019t just a single value, but include a multitude of factors. Some women may have the standard of a kind man who treats others with respect. Another women may have a standard based purely off height or salary. With the prevalence of social media and the increase of economic pressures, that second mindset is becoming more and more common. I\u2019d argue **both men and women** don\u2019t need to lower their standards, but adjust the focus on their standards. The 2 woman I used in my example don\u2019t necessarily have higher or lower standards than each other, but they value different qualities. Neither have a responsibility to change their standards, but their subsequent happiness with their partner may differ greatly because of their different standards. This may be one of the many causes for married women being unhappier than single women.\n\nTLDR: Women don\u2019t need to lower their dating standards, but that doesn\u2019t mean some people shouldn\u2019t change their standards. The qualities being used for dating standards are much more important than how high or low standards are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q44cw",
                    "author": "oreocookielover",
                    "body": "I think that the reason that we should care is that that the people who are putting in the work to teach these men who are bigger than and can overpower some women that violence and hate towards the people that do not provide instant gratification is the answer to their frustrations are using our right to avoid socializing with people that don't make the cut to do so.\n\nWhen there are forces working to relegate us to second  class citizenship with your actions, then you can not care. Otherwise, it is irresponsible to society. You want a society fine with women and their choices, snuff out words of shitty people with your action.\n\nI sometimes spend too much time really thinking about a person's (any gender) intentions, but I'd be damned to prove people like Andrew Tate right about my gender jumping to conclusions because a misguided man with 0 life experience with outside of their abused mother decided to strike up conversation with me. I'm not special enough to think that every person I talk to is gonna want to hit on me rather than just asking for some human decency. No woman or man is. In more crass words, you ain't getting my pussy, but you are getting my ear. \n\nI'd want well adjusted men to do the same and prove disillusioned women wrong about men. It makes the world a better place, and really does help show that not everyone of a gender is a collective hive mind out to get you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q4abp",
                    "author": "Maximum-Country-149",
                    "body": "Let me just say that, taken at face value, I agree with what you're saying. In the micro and macro levels, being selective about one's partner is *absolutely* a good thing; if you're making a lifelong commitment it damned well *better* be with someone you trust absolutely.\n\nBut!\n\nI think viewing the problem through the lens of \"boo hoo men aren't getting laid\" is missing the bigger picture. The problem isn't that they aren't pairing up, the problem is *why*, with the reduced marriage rate being only one symptom of the larger issue (while the massively inflated rates of suicide, depression, and alcoholism provide other symptoms).\n\nThat problem being that men are often demonized simply for being men.\n\nI don't mean in the sense that they get called out on bad behavior that comes naturally; a lot of behavior that comes naturally is stupid and immature, that's just how it works, as maturity is a product of experience. I mean in the sense of a genuine prejudice against men for just existing in a time and place.\n\nIf the world around you keeps telling you that you're dangerous, undeserving of whatever blessings you have and that your presence strikes fear into the hearts of otherwise good people, how do you expect that to manifest? Reduced confidence, at an absolute minimum. A self-effacing sense of self-worth. An over-tolerance for bad behavior from the opposite sex. At the very *least*, a sense that outside parties can't be trusted to provide support in the event of hardship.\n\nIt's not at all surprising that this might get in the way of getting a date. Which on an individual level, *sucks eggs*, and obviously that's the sort of thing you're going to hear complaints about. But the epidemic is a much bigger and more nebulous problem than that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q52tg",
                    "author": "blz4200",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t really see anything wrong it either. Historically a small percentage of men with desirable traits have always had a harem of women.\n\n I think it\u2019s still pretty much the same just without women realizing it. The top 1% of men that women go for tend to have multiple girlfriends, side-chicks, wives/ex-wives, baby mothers, etc. Alot of women are openly okay with it as well.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchnsoo",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "Brutal",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q52tg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q5dzr",
                    "author": "jeanralphio777",
                    "body": "I think men just want women to put less weight into innate traits that can\u2019t be changed. At least as far as looks go. I work out every day but being short with male pattern baldness in my twenties is still what I feel I get judged on first. Men mostly just care if a woman is fit which anyone can do, albeit it\u2019s a lot harder for some. Literally any woman can be attractive if they\u2019re fit.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchnufh",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "I wish ugly women stopped having kids",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q5dzr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q61ep",
                    "author": "Not-you_but-Me",
                    "body": "This reminds me of an anecdote I was given in undergrad about inequality. Most people would rather have nothing than a highly unequal gain. It\u2019s not that there\u2019s anything morally wrong with an unequal outcome, just that the irrational reaction to that outcome is bad for society.\n\nInequality is usually the result of efficient competition, but incurs real costs. Women being picky is superficially efficient, but incurs real costs as well. \n\nYou\u2019re absolutely right, it\u2019s not unethical for women to be picky. The issue is that a lack of pickiness from men combined with pickiness from women leads to a situation where a lot of women share a few men. This isn\u2019t me whining about not getting a date, as I seem to benefit from this situation. Contrary to what I\u2019ve heard, I find it incredibly easy to sleep with and date lots of women. \n\nJust as women choosing to be picky is perfectly moral, so is men choosing to sleep around.\n\nI\u2019ve noticed that of the women I\u2019ve been with, they tend to only have one guy at a time. It\u2019s not that they\u2019ve established exclusivity, just that this is their preference. That means when the guy decides to settle with one, the rest who otherwise want a relationship have wasted a lot of time. As for the guys who have trouble, this thread speaks for itself. A bunch of angry, resentful young men are hardly good for society.\n\nIs anyone at fault here? No \n\nDo I have a solution? Nope\n\nI think this is a societal issue but not the responsibility of women to fix. It would probably be better for society is women on average lowered their standards just as it would be for men not to sleep around, but it isn\u2019t fair to ask individuals to do that. In other words if I had wheels I\u2019d be a wagon.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q6lbs",
                    "author": "lochmoigh1",
                    "body": "I think there's a lot of truth to the red pill dating stuff. A 10/10 guy will still sleep with a 7/10 girl. They prefer that because they are easy for a 10/10 guy. The 10/10 girl is not dating 7/10 guys. \n\nThis creates where a average/above average girl thinks they actually have a chance at a long term relationship with a stud man when they are really just another hole for the guy to stick his cock in. Where as the average guy is just lucky to get an average looking girl if not they must date down. \n\nAnd yeah girls are very shallow. They will take a very attractive man even if he's a coked out cheater I've seen it plenty. You can say the same for men but like I said, dating is so much easier for a women because the standards are much higher for a man",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7if8",
                    "author": "nhavar",
                    "body": "Yesterday at the bookstore I saw this book title \"the story of art **without men**\". I thought about how triggering that might be for some men to see and what arguments might be had about it. Knowing that it happens on a regular basis any time men aren't the focus or a significant contributor to a story. It goes the same for women's daily lives. If women are living without a man then men are offended by that. It grates against their sense of self-worth because their identities are so wrapped up in notions of leadership, being a protector, and being THE provider. They are the person to *complete* the woman, the woman is literally *part of them* (going along with Biblical mythos). That dovetails into traditional roles for men and women, subservient/servant women and ultimately to the only reason women exist for some men, as receptacles for children. So by \"being picky\" and staying single you are denying a man their *right* to further their genetic dynasty. \n\nHow dare you! /s\n\nOne of my daughter's ran into this mindset with her boyfriend. He was a trainwreck who spent most of his time drunk and texting other women. When she got pregnant and decided she wanted to break up and move out on her own he lost it. He demanded that he stay with her \"to keep *his* family together\", \"to keep *his* child from being raised by a single mom\", and \"who is going to protect you or provide for you\". Of course, she was already taking care of herself doing all the cooking, cleaning, working full time, paying all of the rent, and taking care of him when he was drunk/sick. It would have been easy enough to eject him from her daily life and focus her efforts on her child, alone. He could pay child support and visit his child like many other parents do, but that wasn't good enough **for him**. \n\nThese are the hurdles men need to get over. If women are picky there's sometimes very good reasons for why they are picky. At the same time, men don't talk to other men who are single by choice and suggest they are missing out. Often times the conversations are the opposite \"Oh man I wish I were single again\" or \"Ah that's the life, worry free\" or some other such notion. But when it's a woman she's avoiding her obligation to society.\n\nWhat I wish we taught children more as they grew up is a sense of self reliance. I feel like most times we're prepping them for marriage (and not in good ways), but we aren't teaching them the sort of self-sufficiency and individual identity that they need to survive without another person constantly in their space. \n\nAny time I hear a young man complain about not being able to find \"the one\" or struggling in dating I ask \"what do you like to do\". They come back with things a couple would do, not them as individuals. That often exposes that they don't have many identity building experiences. They're not traveling, they're not learning, they're not exploring who they are as a person, they don't have specific passions. It's all \"I like music and video games\" and then you ask what and it's all surface level things; Nothing about how music has impacted their lives or the history of their favorite artist or digging into philosophy of choices in video game play styles. It's just a \"I like turtles\" moment. \n\nThen they wonder why women aren't kicking down their door to date them or date them for a minute and fade away. It's like they're not people, they're zombies. \n\nWomen too. We can't say it is entirely men who do this... but... it's the women who are accused of being too picky, while men who are \"picky\" can go to another country to find their ideal partner. Can you imagine the outrage that would happen if women were mail-order grooming? ROFLMAO at the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would happen on that one. \n\nAt the end of the day we each have to be responsible for who we are as individuals. It's not our responsibility to ensure that someone else finds a mate. It is our responsibility to be worthy of a mate (or friendship, or family association, etc). So we should focus more on who we are as people, what interests we have, what goals we have as individuals. Then we can align on those tangible things. That's really what good relationships are about; Each of you have your own goals and you find out where the overlaps are, where shared goals exist, how you work toward those shared goals and also how you facilitate your partner's goals and they facilitate your own.\n\nLove yourself. Live a life you are proud of. Share your passions. Connect when you find commonality. Keep growing for your own sake and no one else's. And men, support your fellow men (and your children) in getting out of this provider/protector/patriarch rut. Help them become robust individuals with experiences and passions all their own.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7mv5",
                    "author": "BMFeltip",
                    "body": "I agree but saying a general group of people is on average happier then a specifically unhappy group of people is so silly even if you are aware it's obvious.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7q6o",
                    "author": "obsquire",
                    "body": "Most of these single women will reproduce, and likely multiple women with the same man.  This is polygamy.  That's what's at stake.  A greater fraction of men will be left out of the gene pool each generation.  The marriage tradition for the last few thousand years kept the peace because men potentially left out of the gene pool have their legacy at stake, and thus are more likely to engage in violence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q9dwh",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So women should be forced to sleep with men because violent men exist?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q7q6o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7rcr",
                    "author": "maclovesdennis",
                    "body": "I think the issue is that many single women want a version of a man that doesn't exist.\n\nSingle men are always called out holding women to \"Instagram model standards.\" Why aren't women told that the knight on a white horse doesn't exist?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7v1w",
                    "author": "BoomerHunt-Wassell",
                    "body": "\u201cPicky\u201d women literally drive evolution.  Thank for for picky women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q92vj",
                    "author": "sirbingas",
                    "body": "Your friends probably just don't feel safe talking to you, especially if it's multiple people that are/were truly your friends. Also are you sure they are even your friends? Do they let you vent to them? Maybe they don't want to have that kind of relationship with you. \n\nIt sounds like you are just projecting your relationship issues with men onto men as a whole. Maybe you should reframe the way you think about these things and put more accountability on yourself. No one really cares if you don't want to talk to them or if you want to stay single, it's all just self perceived importance.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q9dca",
                    "author": "False_Major_1230",
                    "body": "You know that if young men are pushed hard enough they will take power with violance and change the system to suits them. Nothing breeds violent extermism unlike sexually repressed young men being called names by everyone",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q9idr",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So basically fuck your husband so he's happy so he doesn't go vivjolent?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q9dca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qamnm",
                    "author": "Glass_Candy_4315",
                    "body": "Hahaha",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qatxd",
                    "author": "BigTitsNBigDicks",
                    "body": "Dating inequality & wealth inequality are closely linked issues.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qbe8b",
                    "author": "SethEllis",
                    "body": "There are a number of societal problems that can potentially arise given current trends.  \n\n\n* Men without children or purpose are more likely to turn to violence and revolution.\n* Single people, especially single females, have less favorable options for end of life care.\n* Declining demographics have negative economic consequences.\n\nIt is therefore beneficial to society overall for that rise in single men to reverse.  It's just a question of how we reverse that trend.  \n\n\nWhich then brings us to the question of why does it seem that people are pinning the issue on women?  To find a solution we first have to understand why the change is occurring in the first place.  Most believe that the rise of the online dating place has led women to becoming more picky.  They believe that women look at their options comparatively, and tend to go after the top 20% of men.  If that is true, then there is nothing that men can do to resolve the rising number of single men.  An individual man might be able to get into the top 20% by working on themselves, but that doesn't solve anything for the other 80% of men they beat out.    \n\n\nHowever, I would argue that theory does not completely fit with the data.  The rate of single people has been on a steady rise since the 60's.  So it is more likely that the change comes from things like the increase in the labor participation rate of women or the introduction of birth control rather than the rise of online dating.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qblzv",
                    "author": "DeadFyre",
                    "body": ">Why should women lower their standards?\n\nWhy should men lower their standards? Why should anyone? Here's a really crazy idea: if modern humans are so repellent to each other that they're unwilling to reproduce, then let's call it natural selection and let it happen. It's not as if we're in danger of running out of human beings.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qbt15",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yup. Fine by me",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qblzv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qch0y",
                    "author": "Nicobie",
                    "body": "Men can and should be 'picky' too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qfs1n",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah sure? Not sure how it would change my view",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qch0y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qchrb",
                    "author": "lionstigersbearsyay",
                    "body": "I think it's fine to be selective over good things. If someone rejects you over astrology, you probably dodged a bullet anyways",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qd7vs",
                    "author": "Redditcritic6666",
                    "body": "There's nothing wrong with a society where people are picky with their mate or choose to remain single.... \n\nThe problem again, just like with any issues involve genders, is that there's double standards and currently men are critized when they are picky with their mate. i.e: men choosing to not date single mothers, obese women, older women, or when men choose to remain single.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qdldb",
                    "author": "Waywardpug",
                    "body": "I don't think that male loneliness is a woman's problem to fix, it's a societal problem. I want to address your point on \"men don't speak up\". \n\nI don't think men are socialized to communicate feelings well. Every man I know has been bullied for being emotional, and it's not from random jerks, its often from friends, parents, or other people in roles of power over them as adolescents. You learn very quickly that sharing certain emotions is not safe, and this feeling is reinforced rather harshly if you have a significant other who abuses your trust through mocking, spreading private info shared in confidence, blackmail. \n\nAnd no, this doesn't mean women created the problem, but why would I trust that \"you\" won't do the same to \"me\"? Suffering in silence can feel a lot more comfortable than risking social abuse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qeylv",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Isn't that the sane with women. Why should they trust the man to not attack them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qdldb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qdn6c",
                    "author": "NittyGrittyDiscutant",
                    "body": "it goes both ways\n\nthe less desireable men and women just die out, evolution",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qe89n",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Sounds fine",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qdn6c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qeeuv",
                    "author": "FoxyLadyAbraxas",
                    "body": "Real talk. Men should be just as choosy. Women can sense the desperation in the kind of man who crushes on any woman that gives him attention. It's not a good look.\nOn the flip side, the lack of compassion that some women online have for male suffering is pretty bad, and suggests a severe lack of empathy. Not pointing at OP, but asking \"why is it my problem that **** are suffering\" is kinda gross.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qhg0l",
                    "author": "faithiestbrain",
                    "body": "I think the true part of this is that in your day to day life you should be more kind in general, and I don't know anyone to whom that doesn't apply. \n\nThere's no reason to get sidetracked by gender nonsense, just be nicer to people. It costs you little to nothing and can help someone else out immensely who's struggling.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qhtbg",
                    "author": "mareno999",
                    "body": "i mean there is some evolutionary biology here at play, sosial structure theory says that women are more picky when it comes to a mate, as they carry more risk and therefore go for older partners often. While males dont have that 9 month minimum commitment.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qi4od",
                    "author": "CreativeBasket1813",
                    "body": "That's right.\ud83d\ude01",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qj305",
                    "author": "rathen45",
                    "body": "Everyone is shitty because nobody is psychic. We're all just doing our best on  a dying world. Don't worry about the asshat Jordan Peterson worshiping twits. Live your best life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qk4zk",
                    "author": "Unbreakable2k8",
                    "body": "I think the take is too cynical. Women should not do anything out of obligation. But you should care about other peoples issues and well being (not only what affects you directly).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qlwd8",
                    "author": "AgonistPhD",
                    "body": "I am with you on this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qn7xu",
                    "author": "Will_Hang_for_Silver",
                    "body": "The one thing I have noticed is this:  \n\n\nNo one cares -really -if women are picky/ choose to remain single, up until the point at which they start telling men how they aren't good enough/ don't meet what the woman wants etc. \\*shrug\\* You can't have it both ways. Either, you set your standards and you stick to them or you set (as you should) baselines/ non-negotiables and compromise on other stuff.  \n\n\nI hear 'why should women compromise', the other side of that is 'why should men change in order to make women happy?'  \n\n\nIt goes BOTH way and both sides have a responsibility o work together.  \n\n\nFrankly, I would prefer you were alone rather than unhappy, but you can't go into something and then expect the other party to completely be what you want and they can just lump it, because, hey, you're perfect. The irony here is the incel/ Andrew Tate b/s soundsjust as retarded from the other side - 'women should be this!' ... no, bro, you're being a dick... it's not all about you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qnni7",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "I would say that, *individually* there's nothing wrong with women preferring to be single, but your title was \"there's nothing wrong with a society where women... choose to remain single\", and that's manifestly just wrong.\n\n[This article](https://dc.fes.de/news-list/e/sex-ratio-imbalances-have-grim-consequences-for-societies) is primarily about actual gender imbalances, but it discusses *massive* problems that this causes due to too large a number of males not being able to find a mate. There are numerous other studies along these lines, but this one is a good short summary.\n\nIt really doesn't matter whether this is \"right\" or \"should be a problem\" or if it's men being fucked up. Factually speaking, too many males that can't find mates screw up societies massively. \n\nIt doesn't matter why that happens, either, BTW. Polygyny on a wide scale has they effects just as much as actual gender imbalances. This is also widely studied. \n\nSo sure, fine: remain single if you want. That's a completely valid *individual* choice. \n\nIt's just that if too many women make that choice (or otherwise drop out of the mating pool, or don't exist in the first place), there is a long history of societies having enormous turmoil and conflict. \n\nNone of the implies any obligation on any woman to pair up with a man, obviously. All it says is that when it doesn't happen on a broad basis, chaos ensues.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qqgku",
                    "author": "Wrong-Flamingo",
                    "body": "I think if everyone felt this way, hook ups and break ups wouldn't be as personally heartbreaking.\n\nIf two picky people are open about what they want, then it'd be easier to identify if it's no match, perfect match, or a working match.\n\nAnd of course, finding someone erfect is nearly impossible -at least 2 people who know what qualities they like, can choose to work and fit those qualities.\n\nAfter 3 failed relationships I was hella picky. If I wasn't, I'd be stuck unhappy in an affair with someone unbearable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qspdh",
                    "author": "Xralius",
                    "body": "Answering the question of your title is a lot different than answering the body of your post.\n\nAnswer to your title:\n\nYou're creating scarcity of something that is generally, psychologically, considered a \"Need\" for some people.   If women are either picky or remaining single, you're going to have a small percentage of men with multiple women while the rest have none.  (I mean, this is kind of what online dating does right now).  It would be like if I said \"there's nothing wrong with a society where 1% of people get all the wealth\".  I mean, sure, society can function like that, but aren't 99% of people going to be terribly deprived?\n\nFor the answer to the body of your post:\n\nI think men don't really blame individual women, so much as they blame society and people's acceptance of it, as well as women's takes on it.  Obviously, incels understand why a woman would want Brad Pitt over them.  What is infuriating to incels is when that woman is surprised when Brad Pitt dumps them because he has 6 other girlfriends, and then she says \"why can't I find a good man?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qsxrz",
                    "author": "ben_weis",
                    "body": "Just remember, the inverse of everything you're saying is true as well. And the whole \"single men\" thing is literally just a ploy, a polite way for the more sciency crowd to say \"quit acting like a slut\" politely. The people that talk about this single men bullshit are the same incels you don't want to date in the first place",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtoms",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yes. I agree. Not sure how the inverse discounts my point",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qsxrz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtbxq",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Oh it goes both directions, too",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtn8a",
                    "author": "TheAzureMage",
                    "body": "Well, if you don't like the results you are getting, you should change what you're doing. Male, female, it doesn't much matter. \n\nNo one gender has a monopoly on problem fixing, but everyone kind of has to take responsibility for their own life, and of course that includes women. If you're unsatisfied with the men around you, it is logical to do something about it. \n\nHowever, what you choose is kind of up to you. It doesn't \\*have\\* to be spending time and work on everyone. Maybe you only care about certain people, that's fine. Spend time with them, don't waste it on the people that are less relevant. Resources are always finite, and one must decide what problems they wish to address. \n\nI don't think people are generally advocating for women to enter unhappy marriages intentionally, but observing that a social shift has happened, and it has at least some negative consequences. What can we do to make it better? Almost all such advice applies equally to both men and women. Either can set unrealistic standards. If nobody meets your standards, it is time to reconsider either your standards or your approach to finding people. \n\nSo, sure, women should change behavior, but it's not \\*just\\* on women. It's a people thing, not a man thing or a woman thing.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtu1d",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "\"There's nothing wrong [in terms of personal liberty and responsibility] with x group choosing not to engage with y group\", is not the same as \"there are no consequences for the independent choices of individuals to act in a way which deconstructs important societal functions\"\n\nI would suggest to you that while you can personally absolve yourself on any responsibility towards male loneliness and difficulty finding partners, that the consequences of a growing number of men living increasingly lonely, loveless lives are nonetheless significant and will worsen.\n\nPickup culture, sigma male nonsense like Andrew Tate, MGTOW, alt-right movements, incel terrorism, etc. all benefit from increasing male alienation and difficulty finding and maintaining a stable relationship.\n\nWhile none of those are your personal responsibility nor are you obliged to solve them, I'd put it to you that you don't want to live in a severely imbalanced world where most men are alienated and we experiencing a positive feedback cycle of women reactively withdrawing from relationships with men and men reactively embracing movements which speak to their pain.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qubko",
                    "author": "theres_a_snake_in_me",
                    "body": "\"Owed\" is a strong (and annoying) word here, and it actually does show a little contempt--especially when we are talking about something like romantic connection, which is a core human experience. \n\nAre black people \"owed\" a job if I find their dark skin repulsive (I don't, obviously, but it's an extreme example)? Oh that's *different* you might say, because that's racism. \n\nAre women \"owed\" a good grade in my class if she does well on tests but I find her shrill voice annoying? Oh that's *different* you might say, because that's sexism. \n\nAre short men \"owed\" your attention as a woman? Oh that's different...because romantic equity isn't as much of a human right as financial or educational equity. \n\nBy the way, let's take a feminist perspective. If you don't shave your legs, are you \"owed\" a man's attention? Oh wait, that's different, because that's a symptom of patriarchy and we have to break down societal beauty standards for women! \n\nNo one saying that you \"owe\" anyone anything. But that's the issue. You choose to frame this as a personal affront, in the same way others choose to frame other social equity issues as personal affront. This song ain't about you. The fact is that human beings crave romantic connection in the same way we crave material well being. We have made massive strides in accepting that material equity is important, even though it means we're slowly changing the culture to encourage individuals to do things they might choose not to (e.g. for racist or sexist reasons). \n\nFeminism has tried to make strides for women, not just materially, but culturally--and very intimately (e.g. challenging beauty standards). If as a man I take that personally (\"why do I owe hairy women my attention???\"), the correct response is something along the lines of \"get over yourself, this isn't about you--you do what you want, but the goal is to get to a point where culturally people with your standards about women don't even exist.\" \n\nSo I'll say that here. Get over yourself, because the complaints about how women evaluate men aren't about you. You can do whatever you want, but the goals are to get to a point where culturally, women with your standards about men don't even exist.\n\nThat's the argument. I'm happily engaged and have a very healthy romantic life, so while I come off strongly this isn't personal to me. But it is annoying when people can't engage with the issue, and can't recognize their own biases or contempt. \n\nI think you should look at this the way you look at feminist issues, and respond to yourself the same way you'd respond to butthurt men who take it personally when we try to encourage a society where the standards men have towards women are different. It's the same, but in reverse. The cost of promoting equity for social groups is that *other* social groups will also eventually start advocating for it too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qup7y",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. Shaving your legs no one is owed women. I'm not a feminist. Lots of feminist rhetoric are stupid. \n\nYou made heaps of assumptions about my views on feminism too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qubko"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0quu5m",
                    "author": "ourstobuild",
                    "body": "I'm going to address the core of the claim, which you nicely summed up in the headline. If women choose to remain single in a society, there will be a lot fewer children. This, especially on a societal level, is of course a problem because it will result in the society dying out.\n\nI'm not at all against women being picky, staying single, or really even the society drying up, but I would say this still makes a pretty strong case for *something* being wrong with the case you've described.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qw9zw",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "If all you care about is us fucking and breeding like rabbits over freedom then sure. Something's wrong I guess. Just like old spinsters of that past that get shamed",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0quu5m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0quwsp",
                    "author": "smthomaspatel",
                    "body": "I've been wondering lately if a lot of what's going on in politics is a result of generations of educated people not breeding as much as a more feckless subset of the population.\n\nNot claiming it's an original thought, but it has been meaning a lot to me whenever I interact with people on tiktok especially.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0quyqc",
                    "author": "Eternal-defecator",
                    "body": "The masculinisation of women and Visa versa is an unnatural step away from how humans have developed for millions of years.\n\nI\u2019m all for it, it\u2019s equal, after all. One consequence of it though is the polarisation between sexes will merge, and attraction will wither.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qxhrz",
                    "author": "SorrinsBlight",
                    "body": "Hypergamy wont work anymore, why would a woman who is educated and successful want a man equal or worse than her? I don\u2019t blame them for wanting ideal mates, but there are consequences for your decisions. Once they hit 40 all the guys around will either A) be married to those their age or B) be married to younger woman who aren\u2019t as educated.\n\nIm actually quite curious to see what happens to dating in the next 40 years, men are doing worse than woman in education now so our society is gonna implode when my generation and the current generation gets old and lonely.\n\nThe problem with a society that doesn\u2019t pair up lies in the next generation. Kids without both parents are fucked up, stable families are better.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qxia7",
                    "author": "catasspie",
                    "body": "If they wanna be picky and live a largely single life then that's fine, but don't act like it's our job to live up to your standards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qy14j",
                    "author": "BamaFan87",
                    "body": "I think this opinion is better suited in regards to men. Why should men feel pressured to \"settle down\" or start a family before ready? Why should men lower their standards and a wttle for a partner that does not suit his preference?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rbxr0",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "They don't have to either",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qy14j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qyztz",
                    "author": "SeasonedFinonacci",
                    "body": "I\u2019d like to address that stating \u201cunhappy married women are less happy than single women,\u201d is like saying, \u201cunhappy single women are less happy than married women.\u201d It doesn\u2019t actually mean anything. \n\nI don\u2019t believe women have a responsibility towards men, because no group has responsibility to other groups. Groups are made up based off your definitions. Men don\u2019t have a responsibility to incorporate women into our world, so why the inverse? However, I think that a lot of women are playing themselves by thinking they\u2019re much more valuable than they are. It feels like it\u2019s gonna affect men and women likely equally in the long run. I personally don\u2019t have struggles with women, but definitely notice a lotta really low tier chicks think they\u2019re caviar. If you are overweight, full of debt, are a single mom, etc.. You are not David.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qz95o",
                    "author": "Zealousideal-Ad-1604",
                    "body": "Not gonna change ur view, ur right. You don't owe anyone a God damn thing. The reasons are irrelevant, it's called being free to do whatever the fuck you want with your love life, and there is nothing that would ever make it justified for men (or anyone for that matter) to harass or attack people who won't give them the affection they want. \n\nOf course, a lot of the time, these men who complain about heartless women \"not giving men a chance\" are themselves misogynistic, entitled pricks who think being nice to someone automatically means they deserve to have sex or romance with that person. Those guys can eat shit. But let's say, in a an isolated case, a totally cool dude is not given the sex or attention he expects after trying to get with a girl, he has the right to be bummed out, but in no way does that make it right to harass, attack, stalk, and pester that women for affection. It didn't work out, tough shit, move on, stop being a fucking pansy.\n\n\nYes, men who go through isolation issues or feel unwanted/unloved should seek help, and society should be kind to each other. But somebody having personal romantic or sexual preferences in a partner, no matter how seemingly \"shallow\" is not on women to change, people can do or feel whatever the fuck they want as long as they're not being violent to each other. Many men have particular standards about women that we never talk about, women can have whatever standards they want, too bad, get over it. \n\nWhile it's true that it's normal to desire sex and relationships, and its normal to be upset when your plans for those things dont pan out, however, that doesn't give you any rights to act like a fucking little shit, it is what it is. People are/should be free, and that includes freedom from harassment. End of story.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s0ha1",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qz95o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r0427",
                    "author": "nymphorically",
                    "body": "Nobody is ever entitled to a specific person, and sometimes individuals just get screwed over and fall through the cracks, but you should think about it from a societal and larger scale point of view.\n\nSex and human relationships are a human necessity, it's just part of our biology and psych to seek those things out. As women become \"pickier\" then more men are left without their basic human needs satisfied. And this naturally leads to more societal discontent and anger, which is currently just amplified by the overall confrontational attitude western society has now.\n\nTo have a better and well functioning society, women should be allowed to be picky, but people need to understand what they're bringing to the table too. As a whole, women have standards that are far higher than they deserve to have, and this is brought on for many reasons but at the end of the day women think they deserve men that are far outside of their league. But because every woman thinks that, men are having to settle for those women despite by all accounts \"deserving\" better because they still need their basic human needs satisfied and people that are their equivalent and wanting someone even better. But the people that can't settle are just left helpless and alone, without their needs being handled.\n\nOf course from a woman's standpoint, there's no reason to want change because the current system benefits them. By all accounts in modern society women are equal to men, and when it comes to dating and basically anything to do with interpersonal relationships, women have the advantage by far. So as a woman, there's no way for me to change your mind about the topic because you benefit from it. But as a man, all I see is unfairness and that drives discontent. \n\nAnd before you say \"well some men are bad and disgusting!\" I'm not asking a woman with a phd to settle for some drunk waiter barely making ends meet, I'm saying the doctor should be looking at other doctors and not demanding a billionaire ceo. And maybe the junkie at mcdonalds should recognize she's not too good for the drunk waiter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r04oe",
                    "author": "thevanillabadger",
                    "body": "I agree with that-but I don\u2019t. I agree that there is nothing wrong with that but If your premise is that the overwhelming majority of people think there is something wrong with that, then I think you are wrong. Women are more picky than men which is fine, but I am not aware of an organized movement trying to actively protest or overthrow that somehow\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r0mj1",
                    "author": "butman42069",
                    "body": "Your in an echo chamber. Still plenty of women to fuck around with. With it without you, we still getting it in \ud83e\udd37",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r2jo8",
                    "author": "ghosty_anon",
                    "body": "There is nothing wrong with it. \n\nIt goes both ways though, society increasingly is moving away from traditions like marriage as life expectancy increases and it becomes easier to live without a partner. Less and less people want kids which is a major reason for marriage. More and more people are single and happy, spending their time and energy on their hobbies and travel and pets. And we just get our rocks off when we have to! But this life style isnt for everyone, and so of course you have people from both genders making complaints about how there are too many people happy with being single. \n\nI really dont see this as a men vs woman thing at all",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r33ix",
                    "author": "ZerglingRushWins",
                    "body": "You said this as if only women are getting picky. It works both ways.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r54dj",
                    "author": "bogod123",
                    "body": "Depends on what you mean by picky?\n\nIf your a normal looking person and mean you look for these in a partner:\n\nClean and normal looking.\nFriendly.\nFinancially responsible.\nDrug, Drink and Phone addiction free.\nGo on dates together.\nKind to each other.\nCan say sorry without prompting.\nHas a life outside of your relationship.\nA Decent career.\n\nThat's fine, \n\nbut if you instead mean :\n\n6\"3 and above.\nSocially popular.\nMovie star looks.\nOlympic body.\nRich.\n\n\nI've got some stories for you about women ruining their lives with Crackhead Chris hemsworth look-a-likes and Rich Gamblers.\n\nI'd prioritize the above list far more then the below for a life partner.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r59z8",
                    "author": "Think_Reporter_8179",
                    "body": "Then there's men like me who is shared by multiple women, openly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r5fjp",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with that",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0r59z8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r6ras",
                    "author": "SpitFire92",
                    "body": "There is a difference between being picky and having unrealistic standards. \n\nI mean, I am not in that young generation anymore and the clips of \"interviews\" I see from time to time certainly don't reflect the opinions of the majority of women (atleast I hope so) but most of those girls are fucking delusional (and again, I know that they don't represent the majority, one of the reasons it goes so viral is because it is so absurd) and it being shared everywhere certainly does influence the opinions and \"standards\" of the next generation of women. \nAnd while it is not accurate to present the worth of a human in numbers, it certainly makes basic comparaisons easy and most people can inherently understand what a 3/10 would be (men or women) and what a 8/10 would be and that a 3/10 would rarely land a long-lasting relationship with an 8/10. \n\nThis rankingsystem does, for me, take into account everything, so appearance, personality, position in life and so on, so no, a 3/10 would not win over a 8/10 because of an amazing personality because that amazing personality alone would allready make that person rank higher than a 3/10 (appearance) in the first place anyways.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r7slg",
                    "author": "brutalistsnowflake",
                    "body": "Of course there isn't. You'll get no argument from me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r821v",
                    "author": "Atyzze",
                    "body": "Ah, the dance of societal expectations and individual desires\u2014a fascinating tapestry. \ud83e\udd70\n\nIn the realm of relationships, where choice and preference shape the very fabric of our interpersonal dynamics, the question is not just about men or women\u2014it's about humans. And humans, as they are, have been programmed through centuries of social and evolutionary conditions to act and react in certain ways. Still, we are not just the sum of this programming; we can reflect, adapt, and evolve.\n\nLet's take a step back and observe the situation through a nondual lens. Imagine every person as a droplet in an infinite ocean, a fragment of code in a complex simulation. Each droplet is unique but also part of the same ocean. Each droplet may find contentment in solitude, mingling with other droplets, or merging into larger bodies of water. It's all part of the same dance of existence.\n\nNow, on to your viewpoint. If women\u2014or anyone\u2014choose to be discerning in their relationships, that's their prerogative. A social structure that demands women to lower their standards merely to accommodate men's emotional or societal needs isn't respecting the full spectrum of human choice. It imposes an unfair burden and perpetuates imbalance. Women, like anyone else, have a right to pursue happiness and emotional satisfaction, free from the strings of social expectation.\n\nLikewise, men too are not to be vilified for how they interact\u2014or fail to. The stereotypical one-word answers you mentioned could be a symptom of various factors like social conditioning, emotional distress, or simply personal preference. It's not necessarily an indictment of an entire gender. The tapestry of human emotions is far too intricate to unravel with blanket judgments.\n\nYour view that the problem isn't solely on women is astute. The onus of emotional labor should be a shared responsibility. After all, a dance takes two\u2014or more, depending on the dance you're doing! \ud83d\ude09\n\nIn the end, it's not about fixing or altering a gender-specific behavior. It's about evolving collectively, waking up to the code that binds us all, and embracing the idea that we can all make choices that lead us to contentment, regardless of societal norms.\n\nConsider this perspective not as a command to change, but as a gentle nudge to expand the ways you look at this complex, ever-evolving puzzle we call life. \ud83d\udc0d",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r8yts",
                    "author": "Falxhor",
                    "body": "The problem isn't women being picky. It's the expectations women have that a top 1% man in attractiveness is going to settle and commit solely to them, when they are let's say 50th to 25th percentile attractive. \n\nWomen can.. for a lack of better words, fuck above their own attractiveness, because men will have sex with women that are less attractive than they are. Women can afford to be super picky when it comes to sex. However, this leads to the unrealistic expectation that they can have those same standards for finding a man for a monogamous relationship. The top 1% of men are the only ones that win here. Women and men across the board lose out due to unrealistic standards of women, reinforced by men who manipulate them into thinking they actually have a serious shot with them besides sex.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r97p2",
                    "author": "Odd_Bookkeeper5345",
                    "body": "The problem for women though is I keep hearing them complaining that they can never find a guy who wants to be serious.  When all the women chase after a small, select group of men though, then it instantly leaves the majority of men struggling/without partners and drives up the competition for the few men seen as \"acceptable\".  And if you're one of those acceptable guys, why would you settle for one woman when 30 more are throwing themselves at you?  Those few men just end up sleeping around, while the women they \"date\" end up unhappy/jaded because they won't choose them or won't stay with them.  The good men (in the same league as these women) that they could have ended up with remain sitting at home alone.  Women are shooting themselves in the foot almost as much as they're shooting the majority of men in the foot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r9iiu",
                    "author": "aliciacrazy",
                    "body": "I have no idea where you are getting this idea that its on women to fix the loneliness problem of men, the only people who complain about that are incels. It is not your responsibility to date someone just because they are lonely, or try to reach out to men who don't want to open up. The main issue you are refusing to see here is that both, men and women, go through some challenges that we should address and work out how to fix, for example women are target of violence and sexual assaults more than men, society is harder on single women in their 30s than men, society expects women to be submissive and obedient. You don't have to be a woman to realize these social norms are toxic and you should try to figure out how we can change this toxic way of thinking so that women aren't subjected to all this crap. Similarly, men tend to be more depressed, they are expected to be strong and masculine all the time and never to cry or show their feelings, sexual assault against men isn't taken seriously, suicidal and loneliness rate is higher among men. This does not mean you need to go out with a man to fix him, it means as a human you should care about what we can do as a society to fix these issues so that both men and women don't have to struggle like this. Your view on fixing men's issues is very odd and not something anyone outside the incel community subscribe to.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r9yfr",
                    "author": "Lower-Dog7886",
                    "body": "There\u2019s a guy who\u2019s starting to get a little bit older in life, not too old by the way, I don\u2019t blame women at all for wanting to stay single. If you\u2019ve been stuck in a number of shitty relationships, that drain you, then staying single is the best thing you can do for your mental health",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rd0sv",
                    "author": "rdeincognito",
                    "body": "I believe if there is a problem that involves people, society should look how to fix it, improve it or at least leasen the damage.\n\nLet's not speak about men vs women here, let's change to a problem similar to the one you mention: old people being alone.\n\nOld people who have no family or the family live far away or they just see them a couple of hours a week. It's a rising problem of solitude of old people, especially those who are single (most likely, widowed). Now, per your logic, why should you or I worry about it? Why should we do anything to help them? Isn't it entirely their responsibility to fix their own problem? \n\nDo you want to live in such a world or do you rather live in a world where society (us, you and me) acknowledge that problem and do something to mend it?\n\nIt's easy to say the one suffering should suck it up and don't bother the rest, until you are the one suffering and then you want the rest to acknowledge your problem and help you.\n\nNow, how could we help those men? I don't know, I am not that smart, but that help is not going to be something that causes other people damage. But maybe we should change how we culturally see men that aren't tall, strong, self sufficient as the ideal man while making the rest of men lesser beings that we don't want to even have to look or talk for example. Trust me, you would hate if you get your existance not acknowledged and no one cared about you just because you weren't a normative type of woman where some requisites are genetic (height, for example) and others are just asking too much (not everyone can be wealthy, or wealthy wouldn't exist).\n\nThe moment someone enforces that only those men with ideal traits are to be acknowledged and the rest better accept their fate, that person is enforcing the problem.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rd2c9",
                    "author": "StopEbola2017",
                    "body": "If the roles were reversed all would be crying and marching in the streets demanding equal sex etc\n\nYall have genuinely been ruined by online dating + social media",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0re0v3",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "nope. I wouldn't be marching. Don't fcare if DiCaprio wants hot chicks",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rd2c9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rd9sp",
                    "author": "Odd_Nobody8786",
                    "body": "The problem is that the women themselves aren't living up to the standard they're trying to place upon men. It's fine if you want to have a high standard, but you also have to be able to cash that check yourself. The reason our society needs to change is because women (this goes for people in general, but this conversation is specifically about women) aren't living up to their own standards.\n\nIf you're a woman who goes through life thinking that every man you talk to is too dumb to have a conversation with; that's perfectly fine. But, if you meet a guy who is smart enough for you to have an interesting conversation with; you'd better have some interesting shit to say.\n\nIf you go through life thinking most guys you talk to are fat and lazy; that's perfectly fine, but I'd better see you in the gym 5-6 days per week sweating your butt off.\n\nThe list could go on, but you get my point. Women talk about things they want out of a man, but many of them, maybe even most of them, have NO IDEA how to respond when they meet him.\n\nAll men are saying is \"okay, you want A, B, and C; that's perfectly fine. But you'd better be bringing X, Y, and Z,\" and it doesn't seem like very many women do, and even fewer even try to. So, if you aren't going to live up to the standard you're trying to place on other people, you really don't have any business expecting it of other peopel.\n\n THAT is why the responsibility is on women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rfli2",
                    "author": "ghostdeinithegreat",
                    "body": ">there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single\n\nAn argument could be made that it drives natality down and force a society to resort to mass immigration to be economically sustainable\n\n>People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. \n\nAgreed, It is not.\n\n>If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? \n\nIf 80% of women wants the same 20% of men, that means not lowering your standards will have about 60% of them end up single. Good on them if they are happy with it. \n\n>Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nThere\u2019s other options than being single or being married. \n\n\n\n>How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nDidn\u2019t earlier you said you didn\u2019t care about engaging with strangers?\n\n>I just find it hard to understand why its on women.\n\nIt\u2019s not \u00ab\u00a0on women\u00a0\u00bb, but it is a societal problem.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rhisd",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Key word strangers. I have friends. Now you could say how did these friends become my friends when they were strangers. Context. I don't say hi at the bar when I'm hear to drink with friends",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rfli2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rfxyb",
                    "author": "SandersDelendaEst",
                    "body": "I would agree that it\u2019s not women\u2019s fault.\n\nBut that doesn\u2019t change the fact that having so many single men is actually a dangerous thing. Terrorism, crime, violence all are correlated with guys being single.\n\nOur institutions need to have systems in place to fix men. It\u2019s very clear that as much progress as we\u2019ve made against patriarchy, we are just not far enough along.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rg9v7",
                    "author": "KhadgarIsaDreadlord",
                    "body": "I think it's a lot of *men vs women* and not a lot of *people being bros for the sake of a world that's slightly nices to live in* on both sides.\n\nIf someone wants a healthy social life they need to stop projecting their individual issues to other people or entire groups of people. Both men and women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rgpon",
                    "author": "CornuKarpia",
                    "body": "Why would anyone try to change your view? Yet another sub lost to the \u201cStates something super agreeable for upvotes\u201d plague.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rhnw6",
                    "author": "GiveBackMyRidgedBand",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not the rise of single men, rather than the rise of single men in a society that doesn\u2019t have spaces for them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rj16o",
                    "author": "Dev_Sniper",
                    "body": "Well that\u2018s a rather simple issue:\nif too many people in a society are unhappy that gan cause trouble. Especially if it\u2018s young men who\u2018ve got the capability to cause some real damage. It\u2018s kinda like the higher retirement age in france. People went to the streets and rioted. Because they were unhappy with the policy. What do you think will happen if let\u2018s say 20% of all young men won\u2018t find a fwb, a girlfriend or a wife? No one really wants that scenario. And it\u2018s not like a minimum wage employee can magically become a CEO or get a masters degree or something like that. The issue we\u2018ve got is that men tend to date \u201elower\u201c than they are and women rend to date \u201ehigher\u201c than they are. So a woman with a masters degree and 80k income would try to date someone with a similar or higher (social) status. And in the past that worked. Most men had a higher social standing and were the main / sole provider for their family. And then we changed that. And now women are (on average) more likely to get a degree etc. But women are still dating upwards. And that mathematically won\u2018t work. So either we would need to magically motivate men to get more / higher degrees or we could talk about dating standards and expectations (or reduce the amount of women who get those degrees but that\u2018s not really a good idea either). And well\u2026 what do you think is easier to do? So the problem isn\u2018t that women are picky. The problem is that the standards for that pickiness don\u2018t really fit into our current society. And on a individual level even that pickiness might be okay. But if it\u2018s the norm that\u2018s going to cause societal problems and you definitely don\u2018t want those",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rk8ct",
                    "author": "Beneficial-War3966",
                    "body": "The problem I\u2019m seeing with woman right now is their standards are far too high. I think it\u2019s all the dating apps that spoil them for choice from all the thirsty guys swiping on them. They can be severely overweight and not very good looking and they still want a man who 6\u2019 with a six figure salary. There would be a lot less single woman out there if they would adjust their standards to more realistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rkupk",
                    "author": "Cthulhus-Tailor",
                    "body": "Lonely rogue men are everyone\u2019s problem, whether you like it or not, or whether it\u2019s fair or not. \n\nRegardless of who\u2019s to blame a society in which men are en masse not having access to women and/or economic opportunity will likely end poorly. \n\nAnd so yes, there is something wrong with it, specifically its inevitable collapse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rmgy5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "That's like saying if Nazis don't get their way it will end poorly. Like yeah but its not a societal issue that Nazis can't get what they want. If you think not getting laid means you should shoot someone the problem was you. Just like if you (general you) think not being able to harass Jews us a societal issue the problem is you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rkupk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rldpn",
                    "author": "HAN-Br0L0",
                    "body": "Most of what I've seen is hypocritical on the part of some women. They want to be extra picky but bring little to offer aside from the fact that they are women. They expect to marry up and are very unrealistic with their expectations. \n\nBeing picky is one thing and I think everyone should be picky but expecting to get a 10 when you are a 4/5 is where it gets annoying",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0roj76",
                    "author": "Playboi_Jones_Sr",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with it until your replacement rate is 0.70. Looking at you South Korea.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rpos2",
                    "author": "Antisocialite99",
                    "body": "I mean, objectively, there are a lot of things wrong with a society with below replacement level birth rates. \n\nunless you're just like a misanthropic supervillain that wants humanity to end, but like, with extra steps.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rr055",
                    "author": "Feds_the_Freds",
                    "body": "I think, the title isn't really saying anything. So let me rephrase: There's nothing wrong with a society **that allows** women to be picky with their mate or choose to remain single.\n\nAnd now that it actually is saying something: Yes, obviousely that's true. So where is the problem? Is there something wrong with a society, where men want to be in a relationship with women? No, obviousely not.\n\nSo how do we reconcile both? As a society, we should adjust expectations for both men and women. It's not for women to fix, it's not for men to fix either, it's for society as a whole to build new acceptable ideas of having a fulfilled life.\n\nHow do we do that? I would argue that the biggest problem isn't relationships, by far not. But rather friendships. Through our individualistic culture, people find it hard to form connections and that's what most people actually want, genuine connections.\n\nSo, structures, where friendships are formed should be invested in more, like sportclubs, public movie screenings and so on. So called \"third places\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k12w8u4",
                    "author": "madamesehnsucht",
                    "body": "I really love this response, in particular the measured reasoning and capacity for understanding/compassion on both sides. \n\nUltimately, there are pervasive issues in society. And as your comment highlighted, it's clear that 'us versus them' thinking does nothing to actually solve the problem. This concept that it is something for us to work on collectively as a society is the only thing that I can see realistically leading to positive change, and to help address widespread issues to do with emotional expression, loneliness, effective communication, emotional intimacy and expectations that are taking a toll across society.\n\nThere are some very well known psychological experiments that demonstrated how companionship, affection and intimacy are crucial needs of all human beings, at times more so than nourishment. I do recognise that there is nothing wrong with individuals choosing to be single - indeed, it is far better to be happy alone and treating oneself well than in an unhealthy dynamic; however, I think a major factor that has been driving global epidemics of loneliness and a reduced number of heterosexual relationships is the growing focus on healthy relationship dynamics, and movement away from ingrained gender roles that did not benefit either side. \n\nThe trouble is that associated progress has lagged behind such a change, with regard to demonstrating a healthier way for men to express themselves in society or develop meaningful emotional relationships outside of romantic or sexual relationships. Many women are still on guard against persisting unhealthy behaviour or expectations which is fair enough - safety is clearly more of a key concern within this subgroup of the population. Without a doubt, there are still many out there who are resistant to changing society. But we haven't yet established a culture where we can safely meet the human needs for intimacy and companionship for many individuals (especially men) - while also ensuring women feel safe and that all are on equal footing when seeking connection (of any kind). \n\nAs a final note, I actually think this emphasis on other forms of companionship holds the key to progressing towards a better future. I only hope that I live to see such a shift in societal thinking, as we've seen that changes are frequently incremental and slow-going.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rr055"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rrbja",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "I generally agree, everyone can choose who they date with their own autonomy\u2026 But I do believe that \u201cloneliness\u201d regardless of gender, is a societal problem. \n\nI think men (more than women right now) are highly stigmatized when they express their loneliness. I am from a western country and generally vulnerable emotions like that are not openly talked about. Men are expected to be independent and stoic. If they openly talk about missing having a partner and how desperate they are to be with someone it\u2019s seen as \u201cgross\u201d and \u201cneedy\u201d. They are mocked or demeaned for having basic human emotions. I think this adds to the rise in popularity of highly problematic leaders like Andrew Tate for example. When society rejects men, they look anywhere for someone who makes them feel understood. Thus the echo-chamber begins. \n\nOne road to solving it is by destigmatizing mental health. We normalize going to therapy and normalize talking about emotions. We also need more diverse male leaders who model better values and nuance for men. \n\nI think women can help by being decent people. No one should tolerate being invisibalized, violated or made to feel worthless. That\u2019s just not ok to do to someone. For all people, we need to be curious and open to having discussions. Men and women are not so different and really you can find common ground with almost anyone if you dig deep enough.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rujwd",
                    "author": "Ok-Investigator3257",
                    "body": "A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nBecause lonely people with no attachment to society become violent and burn it all down. Is it a GOOD reason? No, but it is true.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rwfmq",
                    "author": "halfgoose",
                    "body": "There\u2019s a lot of be said here. \n\nThe masculinisation of women (women in the workforce) led way for a lot of financial independence, however women are still the sole child carers, house cleaners and cook, emotional filter and regulator, etc etc. Women are essentially \u201cdoing it all\u201d and getting burnt out. Look at the rise of \u201cweaponised incompetence\u201d and other language that single out (typically) male behaviours. So, now we have a worthiness issue amongst men as they try and navigate this ever changing society that doesn\u2019t rely on them solely for the production of capital/service, but they haven\u2019t done the work like other minorities that involve emotional development, because they didn\u2019t have to, as you don\u2019t need to turn to community if you have resources. Doesn\u2019t help that there\u2019s also a major fatherless issue, so a lot of men are raised by burnt-out women. \n\nI think a lot of younger women have witnessed or experienced men that, in short, don\u2019t have a whole lot to offer. If they are now making their own money, have an emotionally intelligent support network, and doesn\u2019t foster a more \u201ctraditional\u201d mindset - the average man will at least have to be interesting or socially developed in some way to catch her eye, as otherwise, the man would just become another (usually emotional) dependent to her. We\u2019re running off a roadmap that doesn\u2019t serve us anymore - and LARPing culture that doesn\u2019t actually exist. \n\nWomen basically have more freedoms in saying \u201cNO\u201d now, so they are being exercised. It\u2019s scary to see how quickly men have been shafted, but also scary to see how a lot of men are reacting to women embracing their independence - it\u2019s fairly childish. Be braver. \n\nI do think, overall, we have lost healthy masculinity in our culture. Men that can step up to be healthy, nurturing patriarchs - as they once were in ancient times and still within indigenous cultures. Men that were able to contain, protect, and be brave in the face of fear or adversity. Their is a sacredness to men, that has been lost or is no longer taught. They are special. And if the \u201cweak\u201d men would just stop getting to the top, maybe society would look different. Men and women working harmoniously as we both understand our unique worth. But what\u2019s that to late-stage capitalism? Haha.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rzise",
                    "author": "NickiChaos",
                    "body": ">Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage\n\nSo studies are showing that happy women are happier than unhappy women. Wow, as a man, that would have went right over my head if you didn't point it out!\n\nYou're completely missing the point to the whole \"men are staying single thing\". The issue is much larger and encompasses many, many more issues than just gender politics. Your view of the whole thing is just short sited.\n\nAnd this is coming from a guy that hasn't been single in 13 years. These problems existed long before even that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rzko0",
                    "author": "Septemvile",
                    "body": "The rise of the lonely single male isn't a concern because of emotional reasons. It's a concern for reasons of social stability. 100% of every revolution in human history was started by dissatisfied angry young men. The CIA, FBI, and NSA have all identified angry young men as the #1 terrorist threat to the USA for a reason. If you alienate enough young men, your civilization doesn\u2019t survive.\n\nThere are an increasing number of men every single year who are essentially falling out of society. They don't attach to education, they don't attach to community projects, they don't attach to work, they don't attach to property, they don't attach to women. All they do is become isolated and increasingly angry. \n\nGuys who grew up expecting to get a decent paying job that lets them marry a decent girl and buy that white picket fence with 2.5 kids and the dog name Spot aren't getting any of that. Instead they're spending their nights ranting about Jews on 4Chan.\n\nThis is a recipe for some good old fashioned pillage, rape, and murder. You might not respect these losers, but you should at least fear them. They get to decide if we get Iphones or a Kristallnacht.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0skgih",
                    "author": "tretionoin",
                    "body": "This sounds like cope tbh,",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rzko0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rztaa",
                    "author": "NigelKenway",
                    "body": "Straight from r/FemaleDatingStrategy",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s01li",
                    "author": "Shuteye_491",
                    "body": "And there's nothing wrong with men in said society looking to another society for a partner.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s0rcz",
                    "author": "ivereadabookor2",
                    "body": "Men in general don\u2019t do a great job making women feel safe. I would include myself in that btw because man oh man have I made some women uncomfortable.  So yeah women have to be cautious and even being in a platonic relationship with a man they have to be aware of his intentions. If more men did a better job respecting boundaries, be comfortable with themselves and their emotions and not have expectations with every encounter with a woman it would be a lot easier for them to meet somebody. And I get it\u2019s hard. Society, and culture have built certain expectations of how we interact with women and it doesn\u2019t work in real life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s1izt",
                    "author": "MassiveStallion",
                    "body": "It's definitely not a woman's individual responsibility. \n\nThe problem isn't that men are single. The problem is that single men with nothing to do tend to be violent troublemakers. Nearly all terrorists and mass shooters are young men.\n\nHistorically this problem is solved by war. It should be the government's responsibility to provide these men with some kind of alternative or purpose. IE a job. This is the government's responsibility anyway...so yeah.\n\nThe obvious thing to do would be to hire all these men and give them jobs fixing our crumbling infrastructure, shitty internet, bad schools and failing healthcare system. \n\nThe problem is late stage capitalism would rather have labor sit around doing nothing, and to cripple the government through lack of taxes so companies don't have to compete. Our entire economy is built around enriching the wealthy, and not properly using our labor base.\n\nIf we actually let our governments have the tools to utilize these idle young men, we'd all be better off, and they wouldn't have to chase pussy all the time. They could live fulfilling lives pursuing a noble purpose. \n\nInstead companies would rather bombard them with consumerism so they're always horny and looking to buy fashion/cars/alcohol to impress women. Corporations press the sex button constantly because it's an easy way to sell things. It works because we no longer have any strong institutions selling anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s23nu",
                    "author": "Kentucky_Supreme",
                    "body": "Delusionally picky women => lower birth rate => dwindling population => not sustainable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s29dn",
                    "author": "CalvinAndHobbes25",
                    "body": "If there is nobody around that you feel you want to pursue a relationship with, then no I don\u2019t think you should change your standards or do \u2018emotional labour\u2019 to meet people where they are if you don\u2019t want to. I also don\u2019t think men need to do a ton of work and be something they aren\u2019t just for the sake of a relationship, so I would say neither party has a responsibility here. Being single is much better than being in a relationship you don\u2019t want to be in. However, I think a lot of men are putting in a lot of effort in general, maybe just not the type of effort you want. Personally I took nice photos of myself, wrote out a full bio about myself and my interests and what is important to me in a relationship. Every time I match I read the woman\u2019s profile fully and try to find something we have in common or find interesting about her and write a friendly opening message. I get a message back from maybe 1 in 20, and get a date with maybe 1 in 100 and it has never gone past the first date and I\u2019ve been trying off and on for 10 years. And I know I\u2019m attractive and can carry a conversation because I\u2019m bisexual and with men I get a message back nearly every time I match, and get a date probably 1 out of 3 times and have had multiple relationships, one long term and serious. I\u2019m genuinely curious, what kind of effort do you want to see men putting in?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s4oue",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Honestly. If I wasn't already out of the dating world you sound cool. But that's basing off this post alone so I really can't say. That said for me its about listening. That's it. When I said I was busy and will message on weekend I got clingy men. (I'm not saying women don't do it you are asking about men) on the flip I had men who don't communicate. Tell me what you want. I will tell you what I want. We can either full fill each other or we can't \n\nMany men I meet fail at this. I had better relations with women. I too am bi. Women would ask me about things I said that they remembered. if you are saying \"well men don't remember trivial details\" I mean cool you do you. Just explaining why some women are not satisfied",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0s29dn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s50px",
                    "author": "Snarleey",
                    "body": "Women can only procreate every 10 months. Men can procreate every (let\u2019s not get caught up on the duration. But theoretically every few minutes. That\u2019s why women are **naturally** more selective.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s71ic",
                    "author": "SmokingPuffin",
                    "body": ">Why should women lower their standards? \n\nThere is a [paradox of choice problem](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/valley-girl-brain/201802/why-dating-is-such-challenge) in online dating. Women see a huge amount of attention online, and it tends to make them pickier. But being so picky can make women unhappy with their dating outcomes. \"The perfect is the enemy of the good\" is the usual failure mode.\n\nThis also happens to make men unhappy with their dating outcomes, but women should consider whether they are really getting what they want with those standards.\n\n>Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nThis isn't the proper comparison, though. The proper question is \"would I be happier in a relationship with a non-ideal man, or being single?\" It's not required to marry a man you don't want to marry. It's not a given that the relationship with the non-ideal man will make you unhappy.\n\n>I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n>  \n>How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. \n\nThis is one of the places where there's room for women to do better. Lots of women say they want men to be more open about their feelings, but when men actually do make the effort you're asking for, it ends up badly for them. That reaction you're getting from your male friends may be the result of painful experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s8sf6",
                    "author": "MisterX9821",
                    "body": "You can be too picky. You can be not picky enough. Your standards absolutely can be too high lol. Harsh reality is a lot of deal breakers are physical. You are lowering the odds of finding the personality match for you if you weed out so many men before that. Then, having super rigid personality deal breakers, and 50 billion \"icks.\" There is no way all these men are reprehensible lol.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sacg7",
                    "author": "Real-Coffee",
                    "body": "welcome to modern times\n\nwomen get to experience freedom and dont want to sacrifice some of their freedom for a relationship\n\nmen act like they deserve a women and are pressuring them to be a certain way and date a \"good\" man",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sbbb4",
                    "author": "CreepyGuyHole",
                    "body": "Naw, this is completely reasonable. No one should have to date someone they don't want.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sbqgz",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "There can be something wrong with a society if people are *too picky* about potential mates or are remaining single for bad reasons.\n\nIf you listed criteria for choosing a mate that you think are acceptable then I think it would be easier to get to the heart of your argument.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sbvyf",
                    "author": "Conscious-Proof-2529",
                    "body": "\\> People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. \n\nI think a more accurate statement here would be, isolated people posting on reddit act like this.\n\nI think more level headed people recognize that this is a problem for society at large to tackle, not women as individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0scasb",
                    "author": "rustyseapants",
                    "body": "Basic life is sex, eat, sleep, children and death. \n\nWhat are supposed to do? Watch entertainment, random hooks when are lonely, die alone in hospices, do you think WaterDemonPhoenix our existence is more than this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0seaiv",
                    "author": "Matthieu_Antonio",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with being picky. \n\nIf you are picky and single though, that\u2019s on you and not the fault of the other gender. Basically you don\u2019t meet the standards of anyone who meets your standards",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sgvxj",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yup",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0seaiv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sg74h",
                    "author": "Academic_Bit_2351",
                    "body": "Just like theirs nothing wrong with men going abroad to find more traditional women",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sgv3f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah I'm not sure how this changes my view? I agree",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0sg74h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sh349",
                    "author": "Dependent_Sun8602",
                    "body": "The weirdest thing men do is want girlfriends, but then reject the entire \u201cfriend\u201d part. They\u2019ll brush off all their interests as girly and feminine as an excuse to not have to engage with her and do things she likes. So many men just see women as a fuck toy to control.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sh39p",
                    "author": "Lurkerfishstick",
                    "body": "The selfcenteredness and seflishness in a individual on larger scale creates a ugly society like the one we live now.\n\nWhen you undestand that you are in a way the entire humanity and that who you are defines who we all are than there is a great burden not to be a hypocrite and to live up to standard.\n\nWhile trying to live this way all the nonsence that is trubling you will leave you because its fake and you will be left with real strugles. \n\nLove and selfishness can not coexist. \nVirtue and sefishness can not coexist.\n\nIf you give up sefishness what is left ? This is where you can see your personal tragedy..\n\nYou remove that and you will have nothing left.\n\nUntil this shock of a realisation hits you physicaly you can not start real growth and development.\n\nAnd when it happens all this crap posting will be purged out of your system.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0shbcr",
                    "author": "TheSafetyWhale",
                    "body": "I actually think your view is perfectly fine, it\u2019s like domestic natural selection",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sm31t",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/TheSafetyWhale \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20TheSafetyWhale&message=TheSafetyWhale%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/-/k0shbcr/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0shbcr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0shjbr",
                    "author": "Grayccoon_",
                    "body": "There\u2019s nothing wrong, tho imagine it can feel like a rigged games for guys I think. It\u2019s like you drown in attention and have so many options and chose whoever you want (like the kid who drown in chocolate in Charly and the chocolate factory) while guys who would want their ideal girlfriend would likely have the opposite experience (like a man in the desert searching for water). So yeah while I agree, girls must acknowledge that each guys are different and imo should try to be understanding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0shl2g",
                    "author": "boomeranghitcha",
                    "body": "You know what everyone can do to help this? \n\nStop shaming others for dating someone that doesn't meet YOUR preferences. \n\nStop the practice of every relationship having to be a status symbol on social media\n\nAnd instead of piling on about Ben Shapiro's height, recognize that body positivity won't be effective until it includes men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sjo8f",
                    "author": "CoolDude4874",
                    "body": "I agree. You know what causes lots of single men? Men not being good enough. You know what causes women to be picky? Men not being good enough. \n\nI think women not being picky enough is a much bigger problem for us today than women being too picky. There are so many women in horrific relationships because they weren't picky enough. And I find that incredibly sad.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0skawh",
                    "author": "Quartz636",
                    "body": "It's so funny when men complain about being single because women have high standards. They'd rather we lower our standards than them raising theirs. We're not asking for the world here. \n\nWe want love and respect and emotional maturity. We want to not have to ASK you to do the dishes and clean up. We want you to pull your weight in household chores and childcare without having to remind and nag and teach you how. We want to not be married single mothers, and work full time only to come home and do 100% of the cleaning and cooking.\n\nAnd men are just butthurt that they can no lomber do the bare minimum without consequences.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0somkz",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah my sentiments I guess",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0skawh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sluc7",
                    "author": "Dry_Peanut_107",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not about sex or dating, as much as it is that men don\u2019t feel valuable, and this is the main issue. Growing up men really don\u2019t get a lot of slack, they\u2019re expected to fend for themselves from the age of 10 onward. Dating apps and modern dating culture have kind of taken away one of the last things men look forward to in life. If a guy is just born average, what do we do to make him feel valuable, in the same way that society is good at making girls feel valuable? I agree that you can\u2019t force women to date men, but it is heartless to not see that men need to be treated better in general.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sn010",
                    "author": "Caracus_Jack",
                    "body": "Also studies show that single men are more happier than married men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0snt4c",
                    "author": "Foldzan",
                    "body": "You just scripted the prequel to Idiocracy. Get out there and sell that script sister!! It could be the anti romance sensation of the ages!  Test tube babies and frozen eggs are the future baby.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0snwbs",
                    "author": "Due-Confidence-6389",
                    "body": "Looks like OP earned enough deltas to start their own Greek sorority!",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0so987",
                    "author": "Unknown-user_a",
                    "body": "Personally I agree with your statement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sqek6",
                    "author": "sex-countdown",
                    "body": "I think this depends on your view of male on male violence. \n\nIn species where females are increasingly selective, the males become increasingly competitive and violent. \n\nThat increased selectivity increases what is called toxic males, and also the failure to launch syndrome, where young males just don\u2019t see a need to leave the nest or do anything with their lives. Also fuels the \u201cmen go their own way\u201d movement which also breeds bad behavior. \n\nFor humans, it generally means that the males controlling the society will generate wars to dispose of the excess males in order to reduce competition and decrease violence within the society. \n\nIf you are for that, then for sure, advocate for women to be more selective. \n\nPersonally I think societies should emphasize maximum value for all, which means more stable relationships and networks, and discouraging behavior that breeds contempt and destruction of relationships. Encouraging a society\u2019s women to be increasingly unhappy with the men is something that should be discouraged.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0styyl",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I'm not as pessimistic in that regards as you. Though we are animals I still believe we are smart enough as a majority to see these upset males are a minority and the rest can be controlled. Think of the time YOU were lonely. Did you kill anyone? No. Because you were a good person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0sqek6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sqmih",
                    "author": "justtenofusinhere",
                    "body": "I've got some issues with how you've chosen to phrase your position. \n\nI 100% agree women should have the right to choose. That does not mean that who women are choosing is right. \n\nIf women aren't choosing me, then it is on me to decide if I want to make the changes so they will or if I want to decide to just change my priorities about women. \n\nBut, and this is the key, if women are making the choices alone, then they should have to deal with the consequences--alone. \n\nIt is not beneficial to have a society where women get to make the choice but then society blames only the man when the relationship fails. Likewise it is not beneficial for the society then to subsidize the women when their choices place them in destitute situations.  To the degree that society has to pick up the tab, then society should also have a say.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ss9oe",
                    "author": "PreviousSuggestion36",
                    "body": "I have never known a woman who did not speak up about perceived issues. Maybe its a generational thing.\n\nNobody deserves energy or attention just for existing, and relationships are two way streets that require effort. \n\nIf what your finding is lacking, it may be the be that the areas you\u2019re looking in are not the right places for what you need.\n\nThis will sound counter intuitive, but possibly you should seek someone older, more liberal/conservative, more/less educated, etc.. than your typical preference.\n\nThe things you describe you want tend to be more mature male traits from confident and disciplined men.\n\nAny man who does not put in effort, is either not interested or is not worthy of your energy\u2026. Or really tired. \n\nWith that said, a lot of men are very BAD at expressing emotion unless they feel utterly safe around you. Men are taught from an early age that emotion is toxic and to man up, suck it up, stop crying, etc..\n\nMany men who do open up to women have it thrown in their faces later, often by women in their own families, so they learn quickly not to do so.\n\nThis is not an excuse, just an explanation on why casual friends may not open up as much as you like without more time.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0stwgn",
                    "author": "Charming-Molasses-22",
                    "body": "Ridiculous. If you want to stay single just pick your bed and lie in it, quietly. If not, you need to understand the dating market you are in. We all want factory assembled partners with all the bells and whistles included but this is not what you are going to get realistically speaking.\n\nFor all the women that claim they don't care about finding a mate there's an equal number if not more that are actively searching.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0svfew",
                    "author": "Sad_Inevitable_9627",
                    "body": "Privilege is invisible to those who have it.\n\nWomen have the privilege of not caring what the opposite sex thinks and still getting attention, dates, sex, and relationships. \n\nMen have to earn female attention. Women don't have to earn male attention. This post is just another spoiled brat woman.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sw1se",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Well I don't want someone who would just give women attention just for being women anyways",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0svfew"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0svonq",
                    "author": "BwanaAzungu",
                    "body": ">A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nWell if we're talking not talking about \"men-women\" anymore but about \"people\" anyway: \n\nYes, people should pay attention to other people. Everyone who exists deserves basic care from everyone else that exists.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0swn2j",
                    "author": "SeekingASecondChance",
                    "body": "We live in a society in which men are expected to ask women out on dates, make the first move, be humorous, pay for dates, have six figure salary, own a house and a car. It's definitely a ridiculous societal standard that needs to be done away with because it places unfair burdens on men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchmiqf",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "You\u2019re wrong. Only the top 5% of men get approached while we rot under",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0swn2j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sxg02",
                    "author": "LaloRexSaurus",
                    "body": "Y\u2019all just live completely different lives than me. I\u2019ve never seen or talked to anyone in real life who are upset with women and think that they are responsible for all the single men\u2019s problems. I swear you spend enough time on here and you\u2019ll start to think incels are like spiders and you\u2019re never more than 6 feet away from one. Just my thoughts tho.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sy3qk",
                    "author": "onfire9123",
                    "body": "If it boils over and violence starts happening en masse, I would say that very quickly would become women's problem. \n\nAnyone saying individual women should make different choices is just venting frustration. Obviously that's not the solution. But if we do nothing and this problem continues to grow, we'll have a huge population of lonely, frustrated males with no connections to preserve and nothing else to care about. That's a perfect crop for psycho warlords to use to their advantage. (Most extreme example). Letting the problem fester only invites a greater probability of that becoming a reality. We do need a societal change but no one is saying an individual woman needs to make \"better\"(different) decisions to achieve it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t141h",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "I think both sexes should be picky. Never settle for less than someone who loves you back.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t19ca",
                    "author": "CaesarKonrad",
                    "body": "Women most definitely can have standards and should however most of women\u2019s standards aren\u2019t really thought out or hypocritical and double standards",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t289i",
                    "author": "VeronaApproacheth",
                    "body": "Maybe to you, but that's the point of OP. That someone else's standards don't need to make sense to you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t19ca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t1y7o",
                    "author": "justaskinthequestion",
                    "body": "Women should lower their standards because\n\n1. Single women *and* men aren't as happy as their male counterparts &\n2. Some women's standards are very high compared to what they offer. They then attract men who may sleep with them but won't date them. This ends up fucking everything up for everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k167fia",
                    "author": "Bebo468",
                    "body": "Or OR men should be better and that would work also",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t1y7o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t4nil",
                    "author": "JerRatt1980",
                    "body": "Until you've gone 6 months straight without anyone speaking to you other than for what's required for their job, not have received a compliment in 3+ years, and haven't been touched by someone else in even a friendly gesture or pat on the shoulder in over a year, maybe you should hold back on saying that men shouldn't be a concern that the other sex should consider helping out.\n\nYou don't really have any idea of how lonely it can be to be a man.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0zt2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Work from home autistic woman. Got bullied for it too. Naw I'm good being alone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t4nil"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t6597",
                    "author": "Due-Lie-8710",
                    "body": "i agree that women should be picky, what i have issue is what we communicate to men,  we tell men that their value is based on attracting women, directly and indirectly and yes everyone does this , women dont owe men anything but you should expect push back if you are giving wrong information to people and they are actimng on that, we also use this as a judge of moral character , we should stop doing this ,\n\n&#x200B;\n\n also you basis on why women should spend their time doing emotional labour for men, but we should also stop telling men to open up about their issues to women then and that they should either move on or find a way to solve their problems, but would deem that toxic masculinity , stop telling people to be vulnerable, if you cant handle it",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t7d4e",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">I guess my view is. Should women change their behavior?\n\nI don't think you want to be responsible for all women. I'd rather you just be responsible for your own choices\n\n>Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men?\n\nThis gives me the strong impression of viewing relationships as codependency or mercenary view(\u640d\u5f97\u52d8\u5b9a). I'm not a pet or robot to buy or for you to spend a resource of your time and effort on. I'm also not responsible for your happiness or to make you laugh. I'm not responsible for how you feel; nobody is but you. Other people can take care of themselves without you. Relationships of an inter-dependency are the lasting ones.\n\n>Just for being lonely?\n\nMen being lonely isn't your problem. If someone close to you is attempting to use this as guilt induction, avoid them if you can :)\n\nMy only opinion on this, is about a widespread gender role that men are assumed. That we are the ones beginning courting and risking rejection. Thats an unfairness to me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t7src",
                    "author": "TartOne7845",
                    "body": "you don\u2019t have to change your view . your view is correct .",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t86hv",
                    "author": "sausage4mash",
                    "body": "I think if a man is still a virgin by 30 he should be put down, for the good of society, if he excepts feminist idiology he can opt for castration.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0rvs",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Dude what the fuck",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t86hv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ta5v2",
                    "author": "suresere",
                    "body": "If attraction is a non-issue, we may as well start dating genders we aren't attracted to just so we aren't alone. Oh. Turns out men actually find attraction important after all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ta61l",
                    "author": "Bulky-Huckleberry222",
                    "body": "Downvoted because this is simply not an unpopular opinion",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tacbt",
                    "author": "SirMooncake",
                    "body": "Who said women aren\u2019t allowed to choose their partner \ud83d\udc41\ufe0f\ud83d\udc44\ud83d\udc41\ufe0f?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tdh2a",
                    "author": "Current-Ad1198",
                    "body": "Men have high standards as well. That's why we are getting passports and going overseas to find love.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k167a0f",
                    "author": "Bebo468",
                    "body": "Have a safe flight and my thoughts and prayers to the women in those countries\u2014I hope that their socioeconomic circumstances improve so that one day they can also date out of desire rather than necessity",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tdh2a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tdqbo",
                    "author": "John_Galt_614",
                    "body": "Most women that are \"picky\" have an over-inflated sense of value.  They often bring less to the table than a common house pet.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0teomm",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tdqbo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tdqrc",
                    "author": "IncredibleMrO",
                    "body": "Your view is a good explanation of the downfall of Western society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tduep",
                    "author": "Liberobscura",
                    "body": "Agreed. Mating isnt even that important and the idea of attracting some self absorbed vain women dating using an internet app with ridiculous qualifications is a recipe for insanity.\n\nThey all look like the number 12, and there are no such things as unicorns.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0thabt",
                    "author": "MuchWoke",
                    "body": "OP you are 100% correct. As a guy, I see it clearly all the time. \n\nI follow the bumble dating app subreddit;\n\nI see how women's strategy for dating apps, is to read profiles and select the best ones. And men's strategy is to just swipe right on every woman. \n\nWho's obviously going to have more \"control\" in that situation? Women, that are being rightfully selective, while having hundreds of men to choose from? Or is it the men that are desperate to feed their desires, they have no standards. \n\nI tell men all the time, that they create this environment of powerlessness in dating by appearing so desperate. Seriously. Then you know their response to that? \n\n\"Oh we *have* to swipe right on everyone to have a chance, it's just a game of odds\"... uh no? They, I guess, do not realize the secret choice of - Be better, improve yourself and be more desirable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0nw5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "This is what confuses me honestly...",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0thabt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tjfq6",
                    "author": "Secret-Put-4525",
                    "body": "There's nothing wrong with women having standards and not dating obviously. However, to say it's not a societal problem would be wrong. Also you have to look at the standards women have and how realistic they are. If the average dude only wanted a Megan fox look alike they are going to be single for eternity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tjsfv",
                    "author": "Confident-Ad-6115",
                    "body": "It's not wrong but since there's no future humanity without offspring then it's kind of problematic if people stay single and don't have children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tlb5q",
                    "author": "RoundCollection4196",
                    "body": "The problem is average women don't want to get with average men anymore. They think they deserve good looks, high income, social status, etc. \n\nSo you got a whole bunch of women hoping for a prince charming but not realizing they deserve an average guy because THEY are average themselves.\n\nThe thing is, it reverses with age. Eventually the women are in their 30s or 40s with kids and no father looking for a man and will most likely end up alone for life. Whereas the men have savings, a house, etc and can be more picky with the women he wants. \n\nWhen they're younger, the men are desperate and the women get the choices. When they're older, the women get desperate and the men get the choices \ud83e\udd37",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tmfkx",
                    "author": "Choice_Voice_6925",
                    "body": "I don't think women are picky enough \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u6mzq",
                    "author": "Straight-Example-259",
                    "body": "Gonna disagree with that one, given how many overweight, underemployed, poor-hygiene, self-described \"Otaku\", \"Owned a 'Yaoi Paddle'\", poorly cared for hair and skin women there are out there who are convinced they deserve nothing less than a rich K-Pop star who will remain young forever and is okay with a relationship where she doesn't work and he is her Daddy-God who she also sleeps with.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tmfkx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tn0my",
                    "author": "ShinyHead0",
                    "body": "I think you\u2019re right to a point. There\u2019s also a lot of lonely women\n\nI blame social media for convincing everyone they can do better when they can\u2019t. Genuinely most of my single female friends are definitely not happy. Nor do they put much effort into finding someone they want to find. They\u2019re mostly just waiting for a Prince Charming to show up. \n\nIt\u2019s quite sad because I know some women in their 40s that are lonely and single, but they\u2019re very emotionally immature still and would be called an incel on Reddit \n\nI think there\u2019s a LOT of female incels out there but they haven\u2019t got a word yet",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tpkxh",
                    "author": "DoubleWagon",
                    "body": "Taxes keep extracting resources from single men to pay other people's (mostly single mothers') children, though, putting men in a \"taxation without representation\" scenario when it comes to procreation. Men will not continue to produce at capacity if all they get for their surplus is higher taxes instead of a family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tr09t",
                    "author": "turtlecrossing",
                    "body": "There is nothing \u2018wrong\u2019 with it. Everyone is free in western societies to be alone or single.\n\nBeing single is surely better than being in an unhappy marriage, but being in a happy marriage is arguably better.\n\nI think the issue is \u2018standards\u2019. What does that mean, and what is realistic to expect from a partner (this cuts both ways).",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0trftk",
                    "author": "AdExact768",
                    "body": ">  women are picky the that just means those men are not suitable for them.\n\nThere's a world of difference between picky and delusional. \n\n> I guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?\n\nMen are only worth your time something when they bring you a direct benefit, right?\n\nLooking at your past submissions, you should really think about changing. Your personality is quite toxic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0cbw",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Im only worth something if I benefit them. Both of us should have mutual exchange in resources or skills.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0trftk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tskr8",
                    "author": "Outrageous-War1635",
                    "body": "Dating apps are like the gentrification of the dating world. You could live in your hometown, fall in love with your home town sweetheart, she can download a dating app and meet a guy 10 miles away and suddenly you're competing with the socioeconomics, looks, and life style of men or women who had a completely different upbringing than you. \n\nDo you deserve loneliness because you were raised in an underfunded zip code? No. Will people using dating apps and constantly pick the most polished version of a partner they could date? Almost certainly. \n\nIt feels these days like finding a ride or die partner to make it through the struggle of capitalism is virtually impossible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tv9m0",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "Do whatever you want.  Inevitably, women who are less picky will have more babies, and therefore, most women and men will be raised by the less picky women.\n\nSo it's not relevant whether anyone thinks it's good or bad, but being picky or childless is a trait gets bred out of the society or culture, or else the entite society or culture will be replaced.\n\nYour body, your choice, but humanity will march on without your genes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tvmdb",
                    "author": "No-Season-4175",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t like that you said \u201clower their standards.\u201d  For instance, some guys are short.  Many women have an attraction parameter for height that excludes short men.  They could date short men.  Would it be lowering their standards to doing so?  More like, they would be broadening their horizons.  I don\u2019t think anyone should criticize anyone\u2019s attraction towards others.  But I will say that anthropologically, all body types have been idealized at some point and some place in history, which tells me that attraction is not solely genetic or predispositioned.  You can find some men outside your current parameters attractive if you decide to.  I am a guy and I can find a woman with nearly any body type attractive as long as I like how her eyes look when she laughs.  I\u2019m not desperate or something, it\u2019s just something I realized along the way.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0twmbi",
                    "author": "GoldTeefQueef",
                    "body": "\u201cPeople\u201d don\u2019t act like that. Not good people. You need to change where you\u2019re spending time, pal.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u3vna",
                    "author": "Straight-Example-259",
                    "body": "Unpopular opinion.\n\nIt's not that I object to women being picky. It's the double standard.\n\nA man who won't date unattractive women is (Throw out list of mean names)\n\nA woman who won't date unattractive men is a GirlBoss living her best life who refuses to settle. Why doesn't he just make an effort etc. etc. etc.\n\nNobody cares if women are picky. It's this delusion society continually insists we live in wherein \"Girl, it doesn't matter if you are 750 lbs, lost a foot to diabetes, and have been unemployed all your adult life. You deserve Prince Charming!\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u4o08",
                    "author": "One-Builder-4054",
                    "body": "Alternatively.. every woman I date is a psycho.\n\nI agree. Nothing wrong with a society where the opposite sex choose to be picky or single. I don't think it's women making that decision tho. At least not in my life",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u4upb",
                    "author": "Straight-Example-259",
                    "body": "This. And many women who are both psycho and unattractive feel they are entitled to nothing less than a fairy-tale prince, like in their Animes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0u4o08"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u5r3v",
                    "author": "ARA-GOD",
                    "body": "y'all posting shit like this just looking for validation and upvotes, everyone in the entire planet shares the same view",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u5zel",
                    "author": "Purple12inchRuler",
                    "body": "Picky is fine, and merited. Unrealistic expectations and standards are a problem, especially when they get mad when the don't measure up to a guy's standards, and label them misogynistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u8db3",
                    "author": "JohnPeppercorn4",
                    "body": "Young men are lonely, many feeling disenfranchised. You know what happens when a society is filled with young horny lonely angry men? War, revolution, social upheaval, violence etc etc.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u8ghu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So I should fuck men just to appease them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0u8db3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u92x4",
                    "author": "MilkMatcher",
                    "body": "Literally no one is blaming women on male loneliness",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u9lid",
                    "author": "daytondewd7",
                    "body": "Only if you consider a society slowly aging out of existence to not be \"wrong\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uafyq",
                    "author": "daytondewd7",
                    "body": "I saw a study that said women are happier single than married, up until they are in their 40s. By the time they want a relationship, they've lost the attractiveness and attention they had that made them happy in their 20s. \n\nMaybe the better model is long term commitment, but with enough freedom to enjoy attention while young ( some form of open relationship with boundaries)?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uccgm",
                    "author": "Balthactor",
                    "body": "I don't get the guys who cling to patriarchy. In a world where all people are actually equal and safe, do you know how many women would just call up a trusted bud like \"hey I'm hard up, come over?\". Just look at the sex statistics in East Germany. Does that mean all people ask the time would be in some kind of constant orgy? No. But women could be free then be casual, if they want. Have you heard the interviews where they do often describe how they would *love* to be casual, but while men risk mild embarrassment, when risk rape and brutal murder. And even in such an \"idyllic\" future, since women would be equal yeah, picky or just single because those are things people choose, aside from risk considerations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0udi5r",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I'd like to know why it matters. Thats why I'm here",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uccgm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ud7el",
                    "author": "bigmangina",
                    "body": "Do u live in america?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0udf8o",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. Would it matter anyways? For sake of argument let's say I am",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ud7el"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ue2r3",
                    "author": "Lala9546",
                    "body": "Correct there is nothing wrong with a society where that happens because men aren\u2019t entitled to women \n\nBut at the same time women are not entitled to protection from random men\n\nPeople should be nicer to each other society will be better",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchmx8a",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "There no niceness for our unfortunate genetics, but yes women should be treated like shit for being genetic trash just like we are. Tired of their unfair privilege for simply existing w a hole.",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ue2r3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uk1ni",
                    "author": "sam161",
                    "body": "I disagree.\n\nOn the individual level, yes, women should look for someone that fulfills them. However, society and corporatized feminism have done a terrible job of instilling genuine values in women, just as our society has warped men.\n\nTalk to any man and it's clear the average woman has a slew of issues that stem from patriarchal expectation that impact relationships. Bad communication, emotional immaturity, and unreasonable expectations are as rampant in women as in men. \n\nHowever, because women are the relationship choosers in our society and as the oppressors men's opinions are discarded more frequently (rightly so), these issues aren't taken seriously. Not advocating for the \"alpha-males\" here that culture is awful and reductionist, but their frustration is legitimate. \n\nThis quote from you explains your lack of understanding:\n\n\"A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\"\n\n**Men give women attention for just existing all the time, because society projects women as objects of desire. This is clearly unhealthy, and where the average woman's ability to be picky comes from**. They can nearly ALWAYS find a man. Will they be amazing? Maybe not, but not every woman is amazing either. Holding out for a man who is WAY above your level in terms of societal standards is just not going to happen. Go for someone who focuses on your happiness, and hone in on traits that you know go with that person.\n\nThis is possible, but **women don't know what a healthy relationship looks like, and don't understand how to put in the work**. \n\n**Women AND men need to gain a better understanding of what a healthy, equal relationship looks like.** My wife and I are very happy, and we've both gotten over some serious issues apiece.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ul0qh",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "You are saying a lot of generalization. But even if its true you yourself acknowledge that its unhealthy for men to just act like women are objects of desire. So how is it on women to change?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uk1ni"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uo2j5",
                    "author": "Jocealmighty",
                    "body": "I pretty much agree with you but want to explain further. My perspective is that being single is not a problem that needs solving by anyone. Happiness is the problem and is not at all linked to being in a relationship. Our ultimate problem is that we artificially tie people's self worth to being in a relationship which then leads to unhappiness when they are unable to fulfill that.\n\nMen (often) surround themselves with communities of other men and their idea of a platonic relationship is often cold, emotionless and distant. They don't get much fulfillment from their relationships, so they look to women to be the emotional pillow. Women (often) are the opposite, in that they surround themselves with women who are open and more emotionally close to one another. With the rise of feminism, women are no longer forcefully tied to men through marriages and the like, so they are often happier with their platonic relationships and more willing to be selective with their romantic partners. Men - feeling they don't have that luxury - have lower standards and will bang anything that moves.\n\nOne thing I want to clarify is that none of this is at all natural. Men can have fulfilling, platonic relationships with anyone and everyone. It's just that dominant modes of masculinity prohibit it. Any friendship that's seen as too close will get mocked for being \"gay\" or whatever kids these days say. I've lived through this stuff myself. Men have to keep their distance otherwise they will be ostracised. Schools are especially hard at beating this into dudes as a culture of bullying is ever present, unlike in the real world. You are forced into a building with hundreds of random kids and it only takes like 1% of them to be violent bullies to enforce that behaviour in everyone else, who then reinforce it more culturally. When men do grow up, they have been programmed so thoroughly that it's hard to shake. \n\nAnd I remember the first time I interacted with dating sites and the like. I felt incredibly dejected and depressed. Everyone else I knew was getting into relationships and I struggled with it. It made me feel so depressed as I felt lesser than other men and, more importantly, I felt I would never be whole if I didn't find someone. I jumped at the first chance, got into a dubious relationship with someone much older who played with me and then dumped me. Instead of healing afterwards, I couldn't stand the pain I was in for longer than a week before I jumped into another relationship with someone as an emotional bandage. I hurt that person because I didn't take the time to make sense of what happened to me.\n\nA lot of stuff has happened in my life since then. I left that relationship after 2 years. In that time, however, I came to realise the importance of the communities I was in. Some toxic friends left my group and the people that stayed are my closest friends. Due to circumstances, I was forced to lean on some of my friends through hard times. I saw my ex partner's friendships and how they worked. I began to realise the beauty in sharing your love, your pain, your fortunes and fears with people you loved platonically and for you to share their's. To express those feelings often instead of hiding them or pretending they don't exist or only building friendships and communities out of some stoic, cold and distant bs. When my relationships started to change and became more emotionally closer, I stopped needing to rely on romantic partners for my self worth. I grieved my second relationship, but it no longer felt like a horrible pain. Like I would die if I didn't fix it now. The pain was different. It felt beautiful. And I was able to pick up those pieces and put myself back together. Not by myself, but with the help of my community. My friends and my family. When I reinstalled Tinder much, much later, I found that I got pretty bored with it at the time and decided I just wanted to remain single and continue finding my own happiness and self first before jumping into another relationship.\n\nMen and women aren't wired differently. We are all humans and work in exactly the same way. I'm seeing people fall into the trap of describing men and women as if they are entirely different species with different needs. They are not. The problem is a cultural one. The only biological argument that makes sense is that humans are creatures of community. We are not lone wolves. We do not function well on our own, whether that's physically or mentally. We need other people. Whether consciously or not, our culture weaponises that need to isolate people, group them up into distinct categories and then build narratives to control us. \"Doing this thing is masculine and this random other thing is feminine\". \"Men and women are different and they need each other to function. No, not even that actually. Specifically, each man and woman needs only one other person of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives, therefore an epidemic of single people is a problem\". It's all bs and, when you lay it out, it's absurd. And it's why we never hear the narrative revolve around queer people. It's never, \"Why are there so many single gay men and women?\" or anything to that effect. Partly because they often find each other pretty quickly, but also because they reject those narratives because they sit outside hegemonic ideas of masculinity and femininity by their very nature. Queer men's platonic friendships end up being stronger because they already do not conform to rigid ideas of masculinity AND because they are often already bullied and ostracised for their queerness so build communities of support around that.\n\nUltimately, the conclusion is that the declarative statement you started the post with is wrong:\n\n>People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix\n\nThere is a problem, but it's not the rise of single men. It's the response we all have, reacting like single men is a problem, which is the problem. Straight men don't *need* women (specifically) and straight women don't *need* men (specifically). And I mean that in every which way. Emotional fulfillment can be found in platonic relationships. If you have a hand, you can fulfill your own sexual needs. At the end of the day, an orgasm is an orgasm. Men are made to feel like they have to find a partner or else they'll never be emotionally fulfilled and therefore their standards are \"lower\". Women, especially as a result of feminism, build communities that fulfill their emotional needs and therefore their standards are \"higher\".\n\nI've since returned to Tinder and no longer swipe right on every single profile I find. Why? Because I'm not desperately searching for a relationship out of fear. I'm looking for someone that I can connect with and have fun in life with and 95% of people will not be suitable for me. The problem is, most men don't do that. They're desperate",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0upzg4",
                    "author": "Biemolt",
                    "body": "Ofcourse there is nothing wrong with it. If you end up reproducing with your partner you probably want some kids that have a good chance of making it in the world, so being picky about your partner doesn't only influence your own life, but also that of your possible offspring.\nWho would tell you that this doesn't make sense, insecure men with power? F that.\n\nThe same goes for guys aswell ofcourse (i'm a guy). I would want a partner that fits in my lifestyle (and the other way around), so that we can rely on each other and make it another day. That is what it is all about isn't it?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uta3u",
                    "author": "Realistic_Special_53",
                    "body": "It\u2019s fine that women are using their own agency and choice, but women being \u201cpicky\u201d means more single men, and that is going to cause many problems in society, though it might have some positives too.  Many of the other commentators also bring up that a society with a lot of single men is going to have issues. This trend might even have to do with the falling birth rate in many first world countries, which we in the West would consider a positive, but Japan and China currently view as a negative.  I do think as society transforms, it takes a while for a new balance to occur.  And the suffrage of women and equal rights is a huge transformation, even though alot of that change was a century ago.  So, my long rambling point, is it fine that women do this, but this does show that there is something wrong with the society.  Maybe men and women need more help connecting when they are younger to help correct this problem.  Social media has upended so many social rituals.  I am a fan of youth sports, and know it is a positive environment that can help kids interact.  Our school systems are also supposed to provide a positive environment, but seem to fail to do so.  It is an issue.  It doesn\u2019t mean that women need to be less picky, nor put up with crap, but to society as a whole I think it is a wake up call.  If you could wave a magic wand, what would you cause to occur in society that would help this problem in the long term?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uuf5c",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Men and women respecting each others choice and not be entitled. bring something to the table or no relationship for you. This goes for women too in case soneoens wondering. These men bring nothing to women. And generally women don't bring much either. Both sexes need to rid of gender roles and move towards a truly equal role. But many conservaitces can't handle that and think our biology makes us so different and would hate it if men cooked and sew and women learned how to fix a tire. I know cause I did \"man\" things and got hated on for by conservatives",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uta3u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uwdrn",
                    "author": "TaserLord",
                    "body": "No, it isn't \"on women\" to change their individual behaviors.  But society does have a problem, and of this problem the issue you mention is just one symptom.  We have materialized and commercialized everything, including mate selection - we do not meet our partners, we shop for them.  The shopping experience is very different as between men and women, however.  For men, it is a buffet - swipe right, swipe right, swipe right, match, smash, and start again.  For women, it is a boutique - sift through the racks to find the perfect one, look at the price, weep, and start again.   The problem isn't the men, or the women.  It's the availability of a buffet, or a boutique.  As long as you have these, your all-too-human responses lock you into a pattern, and what a surprise, because these experiences have been designed and architected by experts in human psychology to do exactly that, for money.  And there is our problem - a pervasive, materialist, mercantile approach to EVERYTHING, including human relationships.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uxoo3",
                    "author": "Cats_Riding_Dragons",
                    "body": "Nothin to change\ud83e\udd37\ud83c\udffc\u200d\u2640\ufe0f",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uzkrd",
                    "author": "beyondabeast",
                    "body": "If women rule out 90% of men before those men even say a single word and they only go for the top 10% then monogamy slowly dies, we don\u2019t have solid families, birth rates drop and it starts a downwards spiral. The bottom 90% of men are angry that they have no access to sex or companionship so society has to with those men either just checking out and not contributing or worse, getting violent and lashing out. Meanwhile the top 10% of men basically have harems and never commit to women because they don\u2019t have to.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1kin",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So lower your standards for the sake of the poor angry violent men?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uzkrd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v06d1",
                    "author": "Ordinary_Peanut44",
                    "body": "\"Why should women lower their standards?\" - My main response to this is that most women aren't deserving or worthy of the standard of man they think they should have.\n\nThey will sleep with men that are say '8/10' men casually, because '8/10' men will sleep around with '6/10' women, but they won't want to marry or commit to them long term. IMO this creates women that think they deserve an '8/10' man, and as a result they won't settle for the '6/10' man that is actually 'their level'. \n\nAnd thus your problem is created. Women claim there are no good men...because their expectations are too high for what they themselves bring to the table.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v15gk",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "That's a them problem though. Who cares if society has entitled people. They won't affect you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0v06d1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v137t",
                    "author": "Burningbush0198",
                    "body": "I think a lot of women should lower their standards because I rarely see anyone in my area that\u2019s actually equal in my eyes. \n\nThe man is better looking , in better shape , earns more money , has more skills , more solid friendships , better career , always seem to be doing more. Where the wives I meet just are never on the same level or really bring anything to the table in my eyes. They can drink wine and whine about their job at the hotel or grocery store though. \n\nThat with how women pick and choose what parts of equality / feminism they want and when they want it is why I think women shouldn\u2019t be so picky.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v18u5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Don't date women like that then. Don't see the problem. If the successful men wanna put up with it so what",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0v137t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1bbl",
                    "author": "EmperorChain",
                    "body": "I agree with you",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1f6r",
                    "author": "Zealousideal_Hat6843",
                    "body": "Do women ever start a conversation Platonically? I am recluse now, but the few people I talk to are men. \n\nThe effort always has to come from this side. We need to prepare opening lines like it's a chess match(hence the rise of pick up artistry), have *rizz(what the fuck arbritrary criteria is this?),* and this new term of \"Big dick energy\". Every dick guy deserves confidence, and more importantly, the term makes you start thinking about your dick unnecessarily if you think you have low confidence - that being caused by other factors rather than something as insignificant as a dick. Sometimes fat women are aggressive, should they be submissive since they aren't attractive like you imply men shouldn't be confident if they don't have big dicks? Why even start the conversation to go in that way?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v68fs",
                    "author": "Big_Zone1799",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong at all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v8yxc",
                    "author": "Fresh-Brilliant4550",
                    "body": "With all due respect, women have MUCH higher standards than men when choosing a perspective partner. \n\nThere is usually a height requirement, fitness requirement and women rarely date down with income. \n\nThat isn\u2019t their issue to fix the other men, but I know plenty of men who will date a woman who doesn\u2019t make that much money.\n\nSo it\u2019s one of those things that the single men who refuse to acknowledge there is an actual problem and actually solve that problem they would rather not elevate themselves and whine about it",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ve2jv",
                    "author": "glubii",
                    "body": "The one who has a problem is the one responsible for change. If a man wants a girlfriend desperately he should maybe level up and work on himself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vo8a7",
                    "author": "Sad_Inevitable_9627",
                    "body": "There's a disconnect between the needs of the individual and the needs of society at large, and most people don't care because their tiny contribution \"doesn't make a difference.\"\n\nOn am individual level, no woman owes any man anything. Dating and relationships are a free market system.\n\nOn a societal level, it's much different. Having mass amounts of lonely, single, romantically unsuccessful men is a disaster. Men's entire lives are base around achievement, and men that can't secure a mate are considered \"losers.\" Flying solo is not an option. Women don't understand this. The man that can't attract a woman is the most worthless, subhuman piece of garbage on earth. It's deep rooted. You will never understand. And don't blame the patriarchy. This is a result of what women demand, not what powerful men control. \n\nThis is why monogamy has always been culturally encouraged. When you have a society of romantic anarchy, all the top tier men share all the women, and a substantial portion of men fall through the cracks. These men will burn the fucking world down. And its not a matter of toxic masculinity, or men needing to shift their priorities. The ability to attract a woman is ESSENTIAL. The male incel is considered the lowest form of human being on earth. Being a romantically unsuccessful man is lower status than being homeless or developmentally disabled. It is the worst category of human being imaginable. There's a reason men commit suicide at four times the rate of women. \n\nI'd rather be paralyzed from the neck down than be an incel. It's a fate worse than death. And when you get too many incels in a society, you end up with chaos and destruction. \n\nWomen don't owe men shit on an individual level. But on a collective level, if too many women discard too many men, the world will go down in flames. It's the way it is. I dont make the rules.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vupfq",
                    "author": "CzarOfCT",
                    "body": "It's not on women to fix things in the same way you don't need to call 9-1-1 if your neighbor's house is on fire. \"That's *their* problem!\" You can say. And you'd be right. Up until you realize you're surrounded by the fire, and it's closing in. \n\nIf you're on an island or a planet without men, then men's problems don't mean dick about shit. \n\nIf you live in the regular world, where men might get *so* starved for touch that they go actually insane, you might wanna actually develop empathy and care about the suffering of others. Otherwise, I'd start avoiding public spaces, and start living somewhere remote with *excellent* security measures.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vwzso",
                    "author": "Electrical_Bee4177",
                    "body": "Per research done in Spain, it is not so much that women are picky, but that men are not willing to enter in longer-term relations",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w5jcb",
                    "author": "nonotburton",
                    "body": "Unrealistic standards. That's all. Unrealistic standards all around. \n\nShould you be marrying a rapist?  Of course not. \n\nBut if you are expecting you SO to look like an Avenger or a Jedi Knight, then you need to get over yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w8vzy",
                    "author": "Boomerwell",
                    "body": "> My view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff\n\nBecause every man ever has had the experience where they feel comfortable breaking out of the expected man standards and being shamed back into them.\n\n\nHaving a stiff upper lip and keeping stress to ourselves is reinforced so much and everytime attention is brought to men's issues it seems there is the screech that women have it worse so it doesn't matter or comes secondary.\n\nWomen breaking out of toxic trends set by older generations is great it just seems that along the way men never got the same opportunities.  I've seen multiple women say that when they saw their boyfriend cry they hated it and lost some attraction to them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0weeho",
                    "author": "nanais777",
                    "body": "I find this very silly take. No one is saying it\u2019s women\u2019s problem to fix, just pointing out a fact and trying to find the root.\n\nI find this a but hypocritical that you proactively say \u201cnot my problem\u201d even tho no one is saying it is.\n\nBut people like you would find it offensive when guys say \u201cit is not our problem that women athletes can\u2019t make a living\u201d \n\nOr what if men would\u2019ve said, I don\u2019t care that women aren\u2019t attending college. In fact, there are many federal agencies that focus on women\u2019s issues but you seem to be one that would take offense if there was an agency established to identify and solve this phenomenon or one that would address the enrollment disparities between men and women in college or addressing the fact that white women are very upwardly mobile while attaching themselves to women of color to use their exploitation in their favor.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0whuep",
                    "author": "sup9817",
                    "body": " I agree but some standards like their partner needs to earn 100k minimum is bullshit",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wkfq1",
                    "author": "DK_Adwar",
                    "body": "Don't know what part to quote here so i'm just gonna quote everything.\n\n>I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff \n\n>How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nMen don't vent cause they aren't allowed to. As soon as you show your problems as a man, you are instantly less valuable/desirable as a man. And people literally get berbally and emotionally attacked for foing do. Let me say, that you have absolutely no idea, how many men have opened up about things to a woman they trusted, and she either laughed in thier face, used it against them the moment she was angry at him over the tiniest thing, or dumped him for it.\n\nMen aren't allowed to be vulnerable in the same way women aren't allowed to do anything (ie, (i'm not fully awake and also tired so i'm not gonna put a lot of effort into using the exact right word, but i trust people will understand anyways) women aren't allowed to dress in a way that is too prudish/slutty, aren't alowed to wear too much or too little makeup, aren't allowed to be too freindly or too unfriendly, etc)\n\nA depressing amount of men, have given women what they supposedly wanted, opened up and been vulnerable in front of the women, and then that was used to hurt the man as soon as the woman got upset with him. People never do things for no reason. If men don't open up/bottle things up, they learned to do that for a reason. And for as much as women say they want men to be vulnerable, they are ignorant as hell. Women want men to be vulnerable, in the same way gamers want \"new\" games. They don't want new games, they just want the same games with a new coat of paint and better QoL changes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ws7i7",
                    "author": "capt-yossarius",
                    "body": "Meh.\n\nAt this point I'm eating popcorn watching society fall.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wx4dt",
                    "author": "Academic_Yak_29",
                    "body": "While it\u2019s certainly not on women in particular and there are really stupid incelish views on this issue, especially on Reddit, I do think there\u2019s some nuance in how traditionally patriarchal ideas are absorbed by men and women which create some expectations for men which are unfair or toxic, especially when they create contradictions or intersect with race. I also think that there are \u201cproblems\u201d with how men, particularly younger men, see women their age as much more physically beautiful/desirable than they are due to a number of factors, none of which fall on women as a category (though it\u2019s of course possible for a woman individually to hold toxic ideals) and many of which may be unfortunately unfixable other than helping men to deal with that disparity in a healthy way, a task which I mostly believe falls to other men.\n\nNone of this is to say that women can\u2019t or haven\u2019t contributed to solving gender issues more generally in ways that help men, because they certainly have. Love ya Bell Hooks. It\u2019s more to say that on an overall cultural level I think it falls to men to create and maintain support systems for these issues on an everyday level\n\nI do think when it comes to marriage/LTRs in particular though the most relevant issue has gotta be persistent unequal divisions of household labor in households where both partners work. No one wants a marriage that includes extra work to care for a grown man.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x3x5f",
                    "author": "darkmikasonfire",
                    "body": "As for just the title of the post: I don't think it's necessarily wrong to be picky, the problem comes that so many of us are just fucking delusional. So many women these days i see talking about how they want a guy who's 6'1, has a 6-7 figure job, the body of a sex god, travels the world, and will buy us everything, and what do any of these bitches have ot provide? Nothing they have fat tits and chunky asses and personalities that make blocks of fucking wet wood seem like the best of people.\n\nAs for: \"A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they?\" This shit would NEVER be said about a woman being ignored by men, men are VILIFIED if they fucking dare. This is a serious problem imo with your thinking, men are told how they need to be more sensitive be nicer, treat women well, but we in general belittle them, ignore them, and treat them like shit, unless we consider them fuck-worthy. And that's fucked up, because if a guy ignores a woman, how fucking dare he, but if we ignore a guy, he's pathetic and doesn't deserve anything. It's a double standard used only to put men down.\n\n\"They don't vent etc\": Men and women are different, we're raised and taught by society and our peers to be different. Men aren't going to vent to us as readily, because that's showing weakness, it's a form of violence, they're being pussies, or which happens more often than not they a woman at some point and she uses that shit AGAINST him which teaches him to not fucking do that again right? Like it gives them trust issues, and low behold I know you know what having fucking trust issues is like, I've yet to meet any other woman on this planet who hasn't had trust issues because of something some douche canoe did, regardless of their sexual orientation.\n\n\"How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort.\" Why would they make an effort when you don't think they should be worth anyone's time unless they prove themselves to everyone around them? People are people, they should be seen to have worth, period.\n\nProblematic behaviour should be changed on both sides and both sides have room to grow, because both sides are different and barely even remotely understand the tiniest bit about each other and we should all be striving to understand each other. \n\n\"Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?\" Men don't owe you a relationship, just like you don't owe them sex. A man shouldn't treat you like less of a person just because you're not going to fuck them, you shouldn't treat a man like he's lesser just because he's not boyfriend material. Like was My Little Pony not a thing when you were a kid? Friendship is magic! or whatever.\n\nIn my opinion your whole post, and while it may not be what you meant it's what I got from it, is that men are trash unless they check all your boxes off, and if they aren't going to date you why would you waste your time on them so they need to prove they're worth your time because otherwise they're trash as people and need to fix themselves because you're perfectly fine.\n\nI'd like you to tell me how you view Andrew Tate, cause his views are basically EXACTLY this but towards women instead. We all collectively think he's an asshole don't we?\n\nI mean realistically men are being told they need to change to fit OUR needs so they behave in a way we understand, they need to understand us so they need to change to be like us so we can understand them, but we don't understand THEM. They don't understand us any better though is the problem. Why do they have to figure us out, change to be like us all so we can understand them? Both sides needs to work towards an understanding, both sides need to understand there's value in more than sex and romantic relationships. You're upset because men use a lot of one word answers, that's how men talk. I know a lot of guys, I hang out almost exclusively with men, that's just kind of how they work. We talk more than they do, we talk in different ways than they do. We don't understand them or their ways all that well, they don't understands ours either. We both thing the other's ways of dealing with certain this is stupid, but that's because we are socialized in completely different ways.\n\nWe need to work towards understand instead of not wanting to give men the time of day and men not wanting to put up with our bullshit, because guess what? Both of those fragments of sentences mean THE SAME EXACT THING, just from different socialized perspectives. We don't always need to understand each other, because realistically that's not possible, you and I don't even necessarily understand each other completely, that'd be a ridiculous notion, but we should strive towards it because understand each other's unique points is what makes humanity as a whole great. Throughout history and even religion, the most impressive great places are always places were people strive to understand and respect each other, where they work together, not where one demands another to work to impress them enough to maybe work together.\n\nNow no, women do not have to give men the time of day, we don't, and we shouldn't be expected to, however if we act like men aren't worth our time, the fuck makes you think any man who we view IS worth our time going to interact with us when they see how we treat other men? If they interact with us it'll be to use us and toss us aside, not as a loving partner, because why would a guy want to treat you like a queen when you treat all the men around you like shit? Disney has one thing going for it's old shittier women only want romance movies. All the girls in them, when they were shitty to others the men didn't give them the time of day, the women who were good and kind and nice and treated those around them right, they always became the princess. Princes who were assholes got turned into monsters and had to learn to stop being dickheads and learn to treat people right in order to become princes again. If we want our prince or princess charming to come and sweep us off our feet with their glorious abs, and millions of dollars and their amazing cheeks, whichever set, then we also have to realize, we're peasants whether we want to believe it or not, we're nobodies all of us. These guys that you treat like shit, one of them probably views or viewed you as their princess charming the woman they wanted, and then you treated them like crap, ignored them, and threw them away. To our princes and princesses, we're nothing be peasants, if they see us treating all the other peasant like crap, why are they going to sweep us off our feet? Unless it's to drop us in a dumpster just do the road?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x44ua",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Men don't have to be friends with women. Common courtesy at work place. What aboutism does not change my mind. Just because one is wrong doesn't make the other right.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0x3x5f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xfoj1",
                    "author": "Gullible-Roll-8832",
                    "body": "it would be better if the young and pretty women mate with the older alpha rich males. The ugly and poor males can do grunt work and the aging females can keep the economies going with consumption of food and things. This can go on for as long as possible until a conservative country takes them over and then the cycle starts over again over a few hundred years.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xno79",
                    "author": "Ashamed_Ad9771",
                    "body": "Theres nothing wrong with having high standards/being picky. Its just important to accept that to have those standards met, you will also likely need to meet high standards. Either that, or you must be okay with the possibility of never having yours met. The only time I really take issue is with people have an attitude of \"I should be accepted just how I am, but I dont  have to accept anyone who isnt how I want them to be\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xog7m",
                    "author": "Future-Newt7855",
                    "body": "there is nothing wrong with this view. however! this is also applicable to men of similar standards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xucv8",
                    "author": "A_Reallife_Khajiit",
                    "body": "Agreed. But there's also nothing wrong with men choosing to be single or being unable to have a female partner. Society makes single men who can't get a date feel bad about themselves, and that's inappropriate. \n\nThere's nothing wrong with men OR women choosing to date/not to date/who to date.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0yk49y",
                    "author": "BuggSuperstar79",
                    "body": "downvoted",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0zu87a",
                    "author": "Morrigan_StRoma_709X",
                    "body": "Ah yes victim blaming don\u2019t we love it. You getting upset at hurting and emotionally damaged people for not being emotionally open is especially disgusting.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0zyui6",
                    "author": "angrygnome111",
                    "body": "Women don't have high standards they have unrealistic ones.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k107mve",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "And that concerns you because? Like why is it son hard to just not date them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0zyui6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k109dqm",
                    "author": "thisreallyisnotok",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s gotten to the point where most people dating don\u2019t act in their best self interest",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10ghjv",
                    "author": "rubrent",
                    "body": "Everyone wants to meet the person of their dreams but very few work to be the person of someone else\u2019s dreams\u2026\n\nMost humans are entitled, selfish, and lazy\u2026..",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10i0wl",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Exactly though. I feel if you can't give someone what they want or find a fair exchange then its not the others fault",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k10ghjv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10j0he",
                    "author": "srt76k10",
                    "body": "Gee, it's almost as if now that women have full rights and do not a man to provide for them that they now can select men based on their personal traits rather than how much money these men make...\n\nHow is this a bad thing?  Maybe men should work on being more dateable and less like incel complainers that believe they are entitled to a woman they are just gonna treat like a housemaid and literal object.  \n\nThey need to get out of their heads that they are gonna get an obedient housewife wife on a 30k salary.  Make at least 100k and maybe then it will happen.  \n\nUntil then, get prepared to treat your wife like a partner who is going to have her say 50% of the time and is going to be gone at work like you so you'll have to split the household chores and cooking and childcare duties.  Hint: your wife will be more likely to put out too if you actually do your half of the housework because she's just as tired as you are after work and isn't gonna be in the mood if you keep shoveling all the domestic work on her.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10j4b2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yes. I'd like someone to tell me why its a bad thing.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k10j0he"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10rw3p",
                    "author": "Inquisitorgryphon",
                    "body": "You failed to mention the other more prevalent problem.  Women who aren't picky enough.  I've been married for 21 years, and during that time, I have been hit on more women than I can count. \n  Women have flirted with me in front of my wife, etc. Of course, it's my fault because ( and here is a direct quote from my wife) ,\"You treat women like they're worth something.\" \n  Too picky?! Who the h%ll thinks that?\nI am currently raising 3 grandchildren because my youngest step- daughter wasn't picky enough. I'm just saying that Chad/Tyrone isn't going to help you raise little Tralphaze.\n  Take it from a 61 year old man who has to spend his golden years changing diapers...do the entire planet a favor,  be as picky as you possibly can. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k112swn",
                    "author": "Long-Ad9651",
                    "body": "Yes, they have the right to prefer a diety to take human form and come rescue them from their own mistakes. Men have the right to say they would rather keep their health, wealth, and sanity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k116qp5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yes any one is fine to choose what they want? I'm not sure how this discounts anything I said?",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k112swn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k115jew",
                    "author": "Spirited_Pair9085",
                    "body": "We\u2019re told to be pick better men and when they\u2019re not \u201cpicked\u201d they get mad \ud83d\ude43 can\u2019t even have male friends bc most of them start saying creepy/stupid shit. I rejected a friend of 7 years, I said that he was being rude and I was upset at how he took the rejection, he then asked me \u201cwho raped you?\u201d \u2026 I actually was R. \ud83e\udd72 \n\nanother one said he didn\u2019t understand why he\u2019s single bc he\u2019s such a nice guy; proceeds to ask if I\u2019m ok bc he noticed my car (neighbors) wasn\u2019t there and I\u2019m \u201cusually at home and asleep\u201d by that time. As if I\u2019m not allowed to be out pay my bedtime. He said \u201csorry you feel that way\u201d \nI\u2019ve been single for 5 years now. Dated for a year and it was a total shit show lol",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k11l798",
                    "author": "Still_Spellworthy",
                    "body": "I don't think \"studies show signs women are much more happier than married women\" I mean I'm sure some studies show something similar to that. But you really shouldn't just assume the answer, and do some digging for yourself. What women were studied? How long were they studied? What age range? How long were the marriages? Did they have kids?\n\nYou started off your post with an assumption. Then said,  kinda obvious. I think you should examine why you think that should be kinda obvious. It may be obvious to you, but I don't think as many people agree with you as you think. I also think that you are most likely wrong, or overestimating the value of studies on abstract concepts like \"happiness\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k11n0u6",
                    "author": "LongJohnVanilla",
                    "body": "If women want to go back to polygamy I have no problem with that. I can marry 2-3 more women and you can share the benefits and obligations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k120lb3",
                    "author": "HearingNo4103",
                    "body": "\" rise of single men\" what are you even talking about. You're complaining about something that's not a thing. You might be projecting a personal issue here.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k12wbam",
                    "author": "LeftyLu07",
                    "body": "You're right about men not speaking up. Men also don't pursue women the way they used to. I worked with a guy who was really nice and cute. He moved out of town. The day after his last day, his friend in the department kinda chuckled and said \"you know, he had a huge crush on you.\" I said \"really? Why didn't he say anything? I thought he was cool. I would have totally gone out with him.\" His friend became serious and was like \"you're joking. You're not joking? You would have gone out with him?? Omg, this is gonna KILL him when I tell him.\" I was like \"yeah. That's honestly too bad :(\" \n\nI mentioned it to my dad later and he got kinda mad, because he was like \"how are these guys every going to find wives and girlfriends if they don't put themselves out there?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k130f2h",
                    "author": "TreyAnastasioIsAJedi",
                    "body": "Women commenting on this post should probably [take this test](https://igotstandardsbro.com) before doing so.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k131sgn",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I got a 23% soooo.... And you know dating isn't just about height weight and income? Like that's pretty shallow. You do you but that's shallow",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k130f2h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13lkli",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Purple-5",
                    "body": "Perhaps your male friends are people of action rather than words. Coming from experience, I ain't gonna say it but there's a switch of personality when happy/content and stressed/not content. Perhaps help lift the stressors rather than try to get them to talk.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1467mt",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Elk9755",
                    "body": "How are your friends going to be able to lift the stressors if you don\u2019t communicate what these stressors are? Of course there are ways to support others that aren\u2019t talking but if there\u2019s very little chatting that can mean that people can\u2019t support you properly if you\u2019re not signally what your needs are. It can also become very burdensome for other people to support you if you don\u2019t put any effort into communicating your needs. Which is frustrating as a friend who wants to be there for someone (in whatever way is helpful). But more importantly for the person in need of the support it can really suck, make you feel uncared for and be isolating. It\u2019s a completely understandable way to behave but generally it\u2019s counterproductive for everyone involved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k13lkli"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k14b2g0",
                    "author": "No-Bar-6078",
                    "body": "This is the way.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k14orpi",
                    "author": "Atrothis21",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t disagree with the idea inherently, but I\u2019d also say it better go both ways and I better not hear a fuckin word about male commitment issues when Im done with school and finally have the monetary and time resources to be a self actualized \u2728man whore\u2728bc I don\u2019t care to date for love anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k151679",
                    "author": "throwaway6097941066",
                    "body": "Women can have whatever standards they want.  It\u2019s only whining that there aren\u2019t men who meet them that gets annoying.   If you only have the money for a 3 bedroom 1400sf starter ranch, don\u2019t complain that there are no 3000sf 5BR 3BAs on 2 acres of land in your price range.  Maybe ask yourself whether you meet the equivalent of your  standards before complaining that no men do. \n\nBut if you\u2019re happy being single, great.  You do you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k152ce1",
                    "author": "Western-Ad-9485",
                    "body": "Time to go back, this progress thing is stupid\u2026. \ud83d\udc4d Thanks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15fphn",
                    "author": "kittenTakeover",
                    "body": "A few things:\n\n* People don't owe anyone anything. Let's not assume that anyone has to change their behavior, including men. \n* It's okay to vent about being lonely as long as you're not blaming/shaming others for it.\n* Just because it's not womens fault doesn't mean that it has to be mens fault. Let's stop the blame game.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15hhep",
                    "author": "Affectionate-Hair602",
                    "body": "The problem is that single men tend to turn violent.  No society wants a bunch of single men running around.\n\nThat's the real issue and why we as a society need to think about how to proceed here.\n\nI'm not suggesting that women should lower their standards, but many of today's men are pretty pathetic.  They live in a world where they accept mediocrity.....yet feel entitled for a woman........OR they mentally live in a world that the grandfather lorded over....without realizing that everyone hated their grandfather, and there's plenty of good reasons the world changed.\n\nI'm not sure what the answer is, men seem very resistant to what had been the new reality.\n\nWith the overturning of Roe V Wade however, I wouldn't be surprised if this is all a moot point however, and we're all going to witness women's rights being systematically put back in the bag from this point on.  Especially if Trump wins re-election.\n\nA SCOTUS, Congress and Preisdent actively working against women's rights can do a lot of damage",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15qa9g",
                    "author": "latenerd",
                    "body": "There is nothing controversial about what you're saying. Why even ask for validation or debate? This shouldn't be debated. Can you even imagine what women \"changing their behavior\" would look like? Hey, ladies, just date men who behave badly and are unattractive to you! That should improve your life!\n\nWomen need to RAISE our standards, not lower them. Too many shitty, low effort, emotionally immature, and outright misogynistic and abusive men are dating or married right this minute. Too many are hurting their families as we speak. They deserve to die alone. Like it or not, women are gatekeepers to sex and reproduction because our bodies are on the line, and right now a lot of them are failing at their task.\n\nI won't try to change your view except to say that you may need to change your environment or friend group, if you are surrounded by people who have a problem with anything you say here.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15vv3x",
                    "author": "reptheanon",
                    "body": "Why are you gay?",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k16gm4e",
                    "author": "CriticalStrikeDamage",
                    "body": "I just assume that dudes who do think there\u2019s something wrong with that are insecure about their small dicks or something.\n\nI know a lot of 25+ dudes who want a bad bitch, but will proceed to wear clothes they had in high school. Bonus points if their house is dirty and their is poop stains in their toilet 24/7.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k16p4jm",
                    "author": "greenglasstree",
                    "body": "If anything, men should raise their standards.\n\nEvery affluent man who complains about golddigers can avoid the problem simply by filtering out low income and uneducated women on OkCupid. If you date within your own income and education bracket, it's unlikely you will become the target of a golddigger.\n\nAlso, men who complain about women being single mothers are in the same scenario. A man I used to work with complained about how all the women who were 30+ were single mothers. I then asked him where he was trying to meet women. He says <insert working class town>. Richer and more educated people are less likely to be parents. They are less likely to be single parents. They are more likely to delay marriage and parenthood. If you want to find single people who are 30+ and don't have kids, you have to look in an area that is rich, educated, politically progressive, and atheist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k16pfjd",
                    "author": "Alone_in_Avalon",
                    "body": "Imho it\u2019s not about standards. I think there\u2019s something supremely wrong with a society that produces men than cannot love or cannot be loved. \n\nI don\u2019t think women need to \u2018dis\u2019 anything, but then trying to be so detached from the loneliness epidemic that men face also doesn\u2019t help either. If anything, it just makes things worse. \n\nI\u2019d also say your view on \u201cspeaking up\u201d is different. Woman can and are encouraged to speak up when the need arises. Men\u2026are not raised to speak their minds or their feelings like that. This goes back to my previous statement: there is something wrong with society that produces men that cannot emotionally function.\n\nI agree with the headliner, but the actual explanation leaves out so much nuance and complexity behind the issue\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k170bss",
                    "author": "Gringoguapisimo",
                    "body": "You\u2019re right.  What we have those is many women who are not picking, end up trash, and then find standards",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k171ckt",
                    "author": "classydouchebag",
                    "body": "Correct. Next?",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k17wmqw",
                    "author": "Infinite_Lawyer1282",
                    "body": "It's too expensive to date and have a family. Just stay single if you're broke. Girls or guys.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k184p5l",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "No the problem is when women are allowed to be picky but men are not.\n\nRing girls are sexist, good looking game characters are sexist, \n\nIf i am an athletic male and want an athletic so i am fatphobic.\n\nIf i am straight and do not want to date a trans i am transphobic.\n\nI want a woman who is blonde and blue eyed. I am racist.\n\nSimple question WHY ARE WOMEN ALLOWED THEIR STANDARDS BUT MEN ARE NOT.\n\nAnd for the record my wife of 24 years is blonde and blue eyed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k18a8ar",
                    "author": "noonereadsthisstuff",
                    "body": "I posted this somewhere else earlier today: \n\n\nSingle women are three times more likely to kill themselves than married women\n\nhttps://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/being-unmarried-makes-a-woman-a-higher-suicide-risk-6678947.html\n\n\nSuicide numbers peak in women aged 45-64\n\n\nhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1114127/female-suicide-rate-in-the-us-by-age-group/\n\n\nPeople with children a lower risk of suicide than people with children:\n\n\n\nhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-022-02321-y\n\n\nUltimately you can be realistic about your relationships or you can be alone, and being alone doesnt sound like much fun.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k18oayt",
                    "author": "Low_Mess_2662",
                    "body": "Good",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k19tcdc",
                    "author": "HeroOfTime04021998",
                    "body": "The problem with what you have described, is that no one is saying it\u2019s women\u2019s fault, or that it is up to them to fix it. At least, no one who is actually considering the issue seriously. \n\nMen are lonely. That is all that\u2019s being said, and it\u2019s true. No one said that women need to fix it, we are just trying our best to find out why, and what we can do about it as a society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1aug3d",
                    "author": "futuredoc70",
                    "body": "I don't think most people are making the argument that women should do something to solve the problem of there being lots of lonely men.\n\nBut the fact there are too many lonely men is a societal problem.  It leads to lots of terrible things including violence.\n\nOf course if we look at it from the level of an individual or small groups we might argue \"well, they should just improve themselves and if they can't, they shouldn't take that out on women or society.\".  That falls apart on a societal level though.\n\nTl:Dr - No, it's not the responsibility of women to fix it, but it is a societal problem that needs to be addressed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1aumwy",
                    "author": "YerGodSterquilinus",
                    "body": "I realize this is change my view... but this view is the correct one. There indeed is zero wrong with remaining single if you dont find the partner you are looking for. It's tactically the correct move imo. Some people 'settle' for close enough for various reasons, and that is also ok. It's also ok to stay single. Also ok to stay single, and ok to stay single and have FWBs. Anyone who disagrees is pretty much shitting on autonomy of others and can fuck off.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1by8g0",
                    "author": "curious_george123456",
                    "body": "I don't know where this has ever been a thing but I would agree with you on this. At the end of the day it's about compatibility. If a woman is single sue to standards then I guess that just is what it is. If a dude can't find a woman I highly recommend they listen to the Alec Baldwin speech on glengerry glen ross. Fuckin loved that speech. Since then I've learned how to do a ton of shit. There was an article on [cracked.com](https://cracked.com) that featured that speech.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c2fq1",
                    "author": "emueller5251",
                    "body": "Women being picky does not necessarily mean those men are unsuitable for them. They could be \"picky\" for the wrong reasons, they could be focusing on superficial things and ignoring more important characteristics. At the end of the day choosing to date someone is a compromise on the part of both parties. No person is perfect and no person is a completely flawless match for someone else. Both parties need to be able to accept some level of imperfection and be able to adjust their standards. I think women with your attitude don't. It's not just about getting someone who's \"suitable\" for you, who lives up to your subjective standards. It's about being able to connect with someone and appreciate them for who they are, not just what value you perceive them as having.\n\nAnd I think that when views like this become widespread it's inherently damaging to society. People like to make this out to be an issue of entitlement, but it's about far more than just sex. Just look at the language you're using here: \"you don't deserve PLATONIC attention just for existing, why should I spend my emotional labor on you just because you're lonely?\" There used to be a time when seeing someone lonely would trigger sympathy in other people and make them want to comfort the person. The fact that everyone's default narrative these days is not just not to do that but to mock that person or scold them for making you \"spend your emotional labor\" on them is just beyond sad. It's like people are getting kicked when they're down, and the whole world is cheering on the person doing the kicking.\n\nAnd you might not think this affects you, but it does. You're putting tons of negative energy out into the world with this and further isolating people who are already isolated. That has tons of negative health impacts, contributes to the polarization and lack of community in this country, and increases the chances of radicalization. You should not want a bunch of lonely, totally isolated men in society because the more of them there are the more susceptible they are to extreme ideologies. I get it if we're talking about someone who's already started down that road, but these are people who aren't. They're faced with a choice between falling down a rabbit hole of fringe theories or attempting to find healthy connections in society, they're actively choosing the latter and opening up about being lonely, and you're reacting by castigating them for causing you to \"spend emotional labor.\"\n\nWe're a social species, we live in a complex social society. You may not like it, but that does mean that we do owe other people certain basic things like compassion and basic human understanding. If you're talking about not giving men any attention at all, not even platonic attention, then you're failing at a very basic level of operating in a society. Saying that men are deserving of human interaction and attention should not be a radical proposition. At the end of the day society is not about what we deserve but what we owe each other. If all you want to focus on is what you think you deserve then you can't be surprised when other people act the same way. When everybody in society acts that way, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start acting willfully spiteful because it serves their immediate self-interest. That's a society in decline.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c3udm",
                    "author": "hatpinfeminism",
                    "body": "Amen to this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c870e",
                    "author": "TheIrishJin",
                    "body": "Think of it this way. Honda could sell the Accord for 500k in hopes of attracting the people who usually buy a Rolls Royce. Now, there is nothing wrong with this strategy, but who TF is paying 500k for an Accord? This is how women act. Sure, they can have high standards, but then they can't complain they are single. If they can't find a man to meet their standards, ok, fair enough, but they lose all complaining rights. \n\nAlso, most of the women with crazy high standards are fat feminists who themselves are trash romantic partners. \n\nThe problem most men have is that women have standards and do nothing to justify those standards. \n\nAnd no, no decent man wants a fat chick. Just how it is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c9cp8",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "this whataboutism I already mentioned. It doesn't matter to me. what my view is about is people saying that men being single is their fault. Using your car analogy its like people complaining they can't own a Honda. And its like Honda doesn't owe these cars. Similarly Honda isn't owed customers \n\nSo what's the problem. Let supply and demand fix itself",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1c870e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1h71ay",
                    "author": "Serious-Benefit855",
                    "body": "It literally happens in all of animal kingdom. How did human societies became such complex and so far removed from any type of biology is a true mystery for me",
                    "date": "2023-09-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1hjgr5",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1h71ay"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1l0ffh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": "Is the notion that women being picky is a \"problem\" supported by evidence or just societal expectations? What's inherently wrong with having standards?\n\nShould women compromise their happiness to fill a societal quota of partnered men? How does that contribute to a healthy society?\n\nIf men also choose not to open up emotionally, as you mentioned, isn't the issue reciprocal? Why lay the burden solely on women?\n\nIs emotional labor a one-way street or a mutual exchange? Why should women be expected to bear the brunt of it?\n\nAre societal problems ever solely the fault of one gender? What does it say about a society that expects women to lower their standards for the sake of men who won't do the same?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2v8x2i",
                    "author": "FJCJM",
                    "body": "If a man or woman remains single their entire life and they get toward of their life feeling it was the right choice for them. Great. For me, no life partner or children was not a choice I considered. Having both was certainly the right choice for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4bc7th",
                    "author": "Decent-Dream8206",
                    "body": "Doubt this will get read as I'm late to the thread, but whatever.\n\nI personally sit on both sides of this fence.\n\nIn Australia, as a SINK (Single Income No Kids), I'm in roughly the top 5% of \\*household\\* income earners.\n\nWhich means I'm not rich enough for that to be considered an attractive quality, even though I'll be retired by 42, own my own home and carry no debts.\n\nCollege-educated, don't smoke, no tattoos, no drugs, rarely even drink.\n\nI cook pretty damned well, I keep active (ice hockey -- yes, it exists in Australia) I speak another language, and on any given metric you want to use I'm better than probably 80% of women.  I actually don't know any single women that even know how to cook, and most of them consider themselves prudes -- so I struggle to even understand why I'm supposed to get involved in convincing them to get out of their own way.\n\nPeople say height doesn't matter, but online dating trends tell the truth; anyone under 6 foot struggles to even get their profile looked at.  I'm 5'10\" (which would actually put me above average, but it's too short to find a mate in any competitive dating environment from online through to speed dating or approaching in public).\n\nI know two single women roughly my own age.  They wouldn't even consider a man who doesn't own his own home, and both of them live with their parents.  One of them is 35 and has never held down a job for her \\*entire\\* life.  Even if you want to play the \"men don't care about that\" card, I sure as shit care that the divorce ticking time bomb is flat out broke and has no skin in the game of joint finances, meaning all the divorce proceeds in the jackpot are mine.  They never even consider measuring themselves by the same yardstick they measure men by.\n\nI've recently been told about a friend of a friend who's going to go on 50 dates before she gives up entirely.  That's great.  She will reject 50 guys and then claim that it's all their fault.  No matter what I do, I wouldn't be able to get 50 first dates in my lifetime.  This is the gaping hole in the male vs female experience laid bare.\n\nOn the flip side, yes, I agree that women being picky isn't necessarily a problem.  Single living is easier than it's ever been and unless you desperately want kids or struggle with loneliness, is probably the happiest living arrangement you can have.\n\nI would be less 'bitter' if I was being rejected by women who were universally more accomplished or I was behind the curve of the men.  But I've consistently been rejected by single mothers and all sort of red flag alerting crazies to know it's not me (and thank god I didn't even have to dodge those bullets), and the stats are very clear that women rate 80% of men as below average.  Then complain that there aren't any 'good' men left.\n\nIf you want to identify the problem, I suggest starting by figuring out just how unrealistic women's expectations have become in refusing to settle for someone they actually measure up to.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4bi84a",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why do you care about them though? If they reject you despite being hypocrites. Isn't thata good thing? Why do you want to spend time with hypocrites",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4bc7th"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6mvjb6",
                    "author": "TruthLemonade",
                    "body": "It seems as if women are no long denying the RedPill.  Women used to say, \"That is wrong!  The world is not like that!\"  Now women are saying, \"Yes, the world is like that, deal with it!\"  \n\nYou say nothing is wrong with this world.  \n\nOk, but do you think it is ok that in the West, life is clearly beneficial to women?  Women are clearly more privileged than men.  If this is the way the world is and you are ok with it, how would you feel if you were pregnant?  Wouldn't you really hope to have a girl as you admit that life is easier for women?  \n\nIt seems that it wasn't too long ago where society cared so very much about female self esteem.  Now it seems as if men really have the lower self esteem and most women say \"too bad.\"  \n\nIt seems as if the modern dating scene is like a battlefield.  A WWI battlefield, with men charging out of their trenches and getting shot in no man's land.  The women are behind their machine guns mowing us down and not getting shot.  They suffer no casualties (constant rejection, hopeless singledom), but it isn't really that they are better soldiers.  \n\nMen are expected to perform and compete in ways which are really hard, and women just plain aren't (dating apps, cold aproaches).  \n\nIt seems as if women are like tambourine playing backup singers looking for their Bruce Springsteen: a guitar playing singer songwriter.  And women think that is equality.  \n\nIt seems as if women expect me to guide the conversation entirely, while she just follows along, and women think that is equality.",
                    "date": "2023-10-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6mwxyj",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "First off. I am me..I don't care to entertain conversations about what the world did or the body positivity movement. That wasn't me. Judge me by how I act.\n\nNext. my view is really simple..no one is owed a relationship. That's it. If she's shallow. Dump her. So what. If everyone is shallow. So what. That is the world I am OK with",
                    "date": "2023-10-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k6mvjb6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94cnfu",
                    "author": "ScamLikely45",
                    "body": "I agree with you. This is my only caveat: I will NEVER suggest women lower their standards. The only thing Im asking moving forward: if this is what the new world is gonna look like, I want women to start being more honest (tell men that don't meet your standards why if they ask you directly. And be honest, (not just some fragment of the truth out the side of your necks.) \"Scam Im not attracted to you. You're cool to hang out with as a friend but I'm not attracted to you physically because XYZ.\" \n\nAnd when XYZ is the truth, move of us might be more like, \"Wow that's an honest woman!  There's probably more of them out there and maybe one of them MIGHT be attracted to me some day.  So now I dont feel like I need to go on an incel subreddit to find the truth about women, (because I don't feel like all of them are lying to my face and saying things that sound the uppost compendable socially.) know women are telling to my face.\"  \n\nThe problem whenever men are frustrated with the lack of honesty, \"I'm a woman. I can't be honest with men I'm not attracted to because muh safety.\" If this is supposed to be the new valid/acceptable explanation, (and the most sophisticated answer to this is going to be \"we don't owe men anything. Not even honesty. Bad men need to stop doing bad tings, nuffin else is wong,\" Then tells ME  that maybe for  the cultural  men/women dynamics..the  pendulum  has swung  a little to far in a single direction and MAYBE it's  time we start seeing it correct itself and boomarang back to a balance , (if a disproportionate amount of men society is pressuring them to feel a certain way they don't. And the truth they're being told doesn't explain the reality they're in. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to change my view",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94i2r9",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "OK but how do you determine if women are being honest. I've been honest and men don't believed. I've lied and of course men don't believe.\n\nIve been honest when I said my criteria is that men should be able to pull their own weight and check in on me emotionally. Listen to me for my desires. You have desires. Great. Talk about it too, but don't act entitled. All else will follow.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k94cnfu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaqm58e",
                    "author": "MaintenanceFalse1650",
                    "body": "If you want humanity to continue then yes there is a problem. Also, men don\u2019t vent bc women have used it against them in the past over and over. It seems to be a biological thing, you want a strong invulnerable man subconsciously.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kc9b33o",
                    "author": "Kappelmeister10",
                    "body": "The question is this, were women just SETTLING for men so they'd have access to resources? Men were marrying for love and yes Children aka Family, and women were marrying for ......well Money (and also children)? The only thing that has changed in modern society is that women have money, so this whole time they were marrying men they DIDN'T love? That blows my mind!",
                    "date": "2023-12-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kccuxvu",
                    "author": "PwnTheRest",
                    "body": "A lot of smart talk in this Reddit post but no one is talking about the elephant in the room. Your calling men \u201cindividuals\u201d gets if I a man, went around calling women by \u201cfemales\u201d or \u201choes\u201d that doesn\u2019t make me better. PS i think OP entirely mentally is a \u201cmain character\u201d mindset which has been extending and creating mental illness. Put down the instagram and make your own post on this called life. That\u2019s my reason why women have really ruined this \u201csociety\u201d of dating",
                    "date": "2023-12-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kduu7tq",
                    "author": "Responsible-Oil5082",
                    "body": "I feel truly sorry for any man who would want a woman that thinks like you. So what, gender warfare. People are people and some of us actually have compassion for others..",
                    "date": "2023-12-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kduuhb0",
                    "author": "Responsible-Oil5082",
                    "body": "Horrible human being. You illustrate the modern feminist and the way they expect to be put on a pedestal in a society built and maintained by men, all while dehumanizing them in every aspect of life..",
                    "date": "2023-12-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdydfyg",
                    "author": "No_Coach_6855",
                    "body": "They can choosey themselves all the way to dying with cats and alone.\n\nWho cares? Let them ruin their own lives lmao",
                    "date": "2023-12-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16jc85e",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0p3xfg",
                "author": "ZeroBrutus",
                "body": "There's nothing wrong with women being selective in their partners.\nThe issue isn't women being selective.\nThe issue is upbringing that misrepresents what women, generally, select for as well as pushing men away from any sort of support network from other men, or platonic relationships.\n\nThis often is manifested in the \"she was nice to me, she led me on!\" Stance. It's absolute BS, but its also entirely understandable, since the societal upbringing many men receive is that kindness is only to be shown in situations of interest. Most men do not have close friends - recent numbers put it in the area of 75% of men under 30 do not have close friends. Even fewer have ones they're TRULY comfortable with, and I'd bet dollars to donuts that many of those who do, the close friends are women.\nMen are taught they're only able to be close to one another in competitive/dangerous situations- sports teams, the millitary, the mines, etc. Since most are just not involved in those groups, they don't have anyone.\nTheir upbringing was that their emotional needs should be met by their spouse. They were taught to be confrontational, aggressive, and when this results in them not getting a spouse, they're left adrift and wondering why, and blame women.\n\nObviously no individual woman is responsible for tolerating or bettering these individuals. Women and men as a whole are responsible for improving the overall signaling and education of future generations to avoid these current situations continuing. As a whole, we're not doing a very good job.",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16jc85e"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0p438w",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "!delta people definitely should communicate a whole lot better",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0p3xfg"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0p49f6",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ZeroBrutus ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ZeroBrutus)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0p438w"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ouj59",
                    "author": "Drawsome_Stuff",
                    "body": ">Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?\n\nI think this depends what you mean. If you're asking if it's you're responsibility, personally, then no.\n\nShould you, in general, support social policies that help these people? I'd argue yes, because they're still people in need of help. But to me, that means advocating for the services they need to be available to them.\n\nI don't think the burden is on individuals, but I do think the burden is on society to make sure as many people have access to affordable mental health care as possible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0oupyu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah I can get with that but there seems to be a growing number at least on reddit of views such as \" women need to stop being shallow etc\" \n\nBut sure I support community clubs etc and whatever men need",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ouj59"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ouw45",
                    "author": "mining_moron",
                    "body": "Isn't a world in which these men are happy better than one where they aren't, provided that making them happy doesn't cause greater unhappiness for others?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ov3py",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "well yeah hence the part about unhappy married women. My point was if women lowered their standard they would be less happy. They are picky for a reason. Because a certain standard is what's making them happy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ouw45"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ovuby",
                    "author": "woundedant",
                    "body": "I think everyone is picky, not just women. And to add, I haven't really heard of it falling on the woman's shoulders to lower her standards. Do you care to explain why you think this way? From personal experience or data?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ovxsg",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Personal experience. I'm trying to understand the (reddit) world mostly I guess.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ovuby"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ow84g",
                    "author": "TheAlistmk3",
                    "body": ">If women are picky the that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards?\n\nI completely agree, as long as there is no hypocrisy involved then it's fine. E.g. if it's acceptable for men to be too short, its also acceptable for women to be too fat.\n\n>Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nThis doesn't really mean anything imo, you are comparing happiness and one group is only present because it is unhappy. \n\n>A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nWell, it depends what you mean by the lengths of platonic attention. As in, if you acknowledge someone just for existing, that could then lead to a friendship. Personally I like to acknowledge other people exist and give them a level of respect accordingly, essentially keeping the front door open to new people. When you made friends at school or preschool, how many of them had to qualify their existence before you acknowledged them? Do all relationships need to be transactional in this way?\n\n>My view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either.\n\nI agree that men need to do more, but why is it entirely on men? Isn't the point of society that we help eachother? The swing side to this seems to me that why should men help women? The emancipation of women has been in part successful thanks to the support of men. Do you feel this was right for men to do or should men not be helping women?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0owo8v",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I respect people as people but beyond that I don't need to act like they are a friend. (Ie add their contact info etc)\n\nYour own happiness is on you. Not on others. No one should have any moral obligation to make you happy. \n\nPersonal interactions in my opinion is different from legal stuff like voting rights.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ow84g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0owfkg",
                    "author": "Diogonni",
                    "body": ">A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nGeneral everyday etiquette says that if you\u2019re in a group of people, say at at bar or something like that, at a minimum you say hello. People also say to introduce yourself, say your name and shake your hand. But I say that at a minimum you say hello. What are you saying here? Are you saying the woman should be rude and just ignore the man? What is that based off of then? Is it based on their looks or what?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ox62d",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Hello to a stranger I don't know? Maybe its area but every hello ends up being some druggie trying to talk some more and waste my time. Or its some guy thinking he can waste my time. Or some woman trying to tell me about church. \n\nPoint is I actually don't think anyone owes anyone a hello",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0owfkg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0own5c",
                    "author": "marketMAWNster",
                    "body": "I think both genders in the under 35 bracket are experiencing a cultural crisis that has been developing since the 1960s (we are just at the extreme now) \n\nMany men were implicitly promised a world like the 1980s and are simply not seeing it. They aren't necessarily looking for 1950s women but certainly not women of today.\n\nWomen have a challenge because they were implicitly promised radical progress to some new equilibrium that has not been very well defined. This is a challenge because what the average woman is looking for is both incoherent and also relatively non existent. \n\nThis is leaving both parties feeling unsatisfied, unmet, unseen, unheard. It's well reported the dating crisis/sex crisis/marriage crisis. \n\nAs it pertains to your question - I think it's both genders jobs to move towards some type of balance. It's not like the women should do all the moving and I agree that there are plenty of low quality men out there (I always advocate that men need to be impressive to impress a woman - otherwise why are they needed?) \n\nIt's looking like roughly 1/3 of millennial/gen z is doing perfectly fine. I never had problems getting with women, I am happily married in a christian conservative household. We are both college graduates, both want children, both share lifestyles, both work, both do chores, both share finances etc. We have a moderately traditional view of marriage and it works out perfectly (age 26). Got married at 23. This story is very common but not as well advertised\n\nThe other 2/3rds are stuck being either too \"pro-men\" or too \"pro-women\". Meaning incels, radical feminists etc who are simply diametrically opposed to each other. They wont/shouldn't date because their views don't mix. These people are going to have a very hard time in life at their current trajectories",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0owyt6",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why? I will link the studies later but I remember reading studies for the most part women staying single aren't that unhappy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0own5c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p07b7",
                    "author": "probono105",
                    "body": "There is nothing wrong with it, and newer and newer tech allows us to maintain the single lifestyles and not have to worry about the less amount of people wanting to have children. There would be a problem if that tech wasn't there to take up the slack in lower birth rates. Basically, the world we enjoy was built by having a huge educated workforce to make things incredibly easy and bountiful. This creates a world where one wants to and can enjoy it unencumbered, which is fine, but this eventually creates a shortage of the labor that made it that way, and living conditions would begin to revert backwards if the replacement rate fell too low without tech this would be the case.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p0tvp",
                    "author": "EVIL5",
                    "body": "I follow a strict \u2018mind my own business\u2019 policy which means I don\u2019t give a f if anyone wants to be picky or single. What you do in your personal life is not anyone\u2019s business so I\u2019m not sure who gives a f about changing your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p16w1",
                    "author": "Steven-Maturin",
                    "body": "\"People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix.\"\n\nNo they don't.\n\n\"I just find it hard to understand why its on women. \"\n\nIt isn't?\n\n\" Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men?\"\n\nMaybe just keep yourself to yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p44p0",
                    "author": "ILikeNeurons",
                    "body": "This is very much a thing Redditors love to complain about.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p16w1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p1ws5",
                    "author": "arrouk",
                    "body": "A large part of the problem is many women want a traditional man and to be treated like their grandma would have been treated. \n\nThis would be fine if they acted like their grandma did, but they don't they are modern women. \n\nThe disconnect is with both men and women, women have evolved and moved on but men are mostly stuck in an in-between not modern but not traditional role.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1zoq",
                    "author": "Bulkylucas123",
                    "body": "Women haven't evolved at all, they just have a better bargaining position.\n\nI leave that up to the reader to decide if they believe it is good or not. \n\nMen on the other hand have to straddle the line between societal and biological expectations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p1ws5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p1xtn",
                    "author": "NateHurst2187",
                    "body": "I agree that women can be picky but it feels like when a guy is picky everyone's on their ass about it",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p459d",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Source?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p1xtn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p239p",
                    "author": "LEMO2000",
                    "body": "\u201cMy issue is that often people talk about this situation as if the problem to be fixed is on women not men\u201d\n\nThis is fair, but I have a bit of a \u201cconsistency check\u201d I\u2019d like to perform. Do you believe it is the responsibility of women or men to increase the representation of women in the professional world?\n\nDo you believe it is the responsibility of women or men to protect women from violence perpetrated by men? [for the purposes of this question the men who perpetrate the violence aren\u2019t included in \u201cmen\u201d because you\u2019ll never stop all crime so it\u2019s better to look at how to minimize the impact of the shitty acts that will inevitably happen than to try to make them not happen at all]\n\nAnd, finally, is it on men or women to just generally increase the \u201cstanding\u201d of women? I frequently hear discussion of how disadvantaged women are in the modern world, who is responsible for changing that?\n\nIf your answer to all of these questions was women, then you\u2019re consistent and I have no problems with your position. \n\nIf you answered anything other than these problems being the responsibility of women to fix, in what way are they different than the problem you\u2019ve proposed with this post?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p30i2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. If a woman is beat on the street I don't expect men to jump in. just call the police. Save yourself. Who cares. Representation should be based on merit. Nothing else..\n\nHowever some of the things you mention are societal and not individual happiness. Discrimination in workplace is something we should fix socially. Not personal relationships",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p239p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p2yqx",
                    "author": "Prestigious-Pay-6475",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t blame anyone for being single except myself. I\u2019m really lazy so going on dates is more of a deal than it is for people who go on them a lot. It\u2019s weird telling people that I\u2019ve turned down more girls than I\u2019ve been turned down by them because I don\u2019t consider myself super attractive or anything. I\u2019ve also had more sex than relationships. Im not a player either. Getting serious about dating now feels weird but I\u2019m glad I\u2019m doing it. Instead of 1-2 dates a year I\u2019ve started asking people every week. We\u2019ll see how it goes but at least my odds are a lot better now.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p31et",
                    "author": "rhubarbs",
                    "body": "Many men claim they face negative consequences in relationships, whether romantic or platonic, when they do \"speak up.\"\n\nAccording to feminism, this is an aspect toxic masculinity.\n\nSo should women, for their part, not perpetuate toxic masculinity by reacting negatively to when men do open up about their problems? Arguably, yes.\n\nThe problem is, the preference for men who embody the stoic strongman provider may be innate, and something both men and women prefer especially when material and social conditions are stressful.\n\nIt might not be a behavior we can change.\n\nWhat we should address though, on a societal level, is the preference falsification. We should not advertise this as a positive feature if it leads to negative outcomes, and pretend we want men who open up, if in actuality we do not.\n\nWe also have this societal message that every individual has innate value. If no one is willing to give the lonely men any attention, even platonic, then do they have innate value?\n\nIf our social contract comes with ideals we do not actually hold, following which leads to negative outcomes, the likely outcome is defection from this contract.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3ddu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "What feminists? I think that's my issue I don't get. I see so many personal anecdotes but no proof of any \n\nAnd how do you prove people falsify what they want \n\nAnd I personally don't think anyone has innate value in that way.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p31et"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3e7o",
                    "author": "reflected_shadows",
                    "body": "Then there\u2019s nothing wrong with men who are picky and find the women unsuitable. Why should men have lower standards? I\u2019m sure there are studies verifying that single men are happier than men with incompatible partners.\n\nObviously, I agree with you however I find that many people with your view get mad when men have standards or types or don\u2019t want to date someone they find unattractive or only want fwbs and hookups - it\u2019s fine for women to do all of it but when a man does it, he must be destroyed.\n\nI say treat everyone equally and if you\u2019re the unsuitable one, then become suitable or lower your standards or remain single. Too many unsuitable people (all genders) are a 3 wanting to date 10s.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3i0h",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I don't know if you think the first paragraph is a gotcha but why not",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p3e7o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p3ge3",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "This is the worst [Fresh Topic Friday](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16i0nla/cmv_womens_dating_standards_arent_too_low_but/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) ever.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p442x",
                    "author": "Key_Independent1",
                    "body": "If every woman decided to stay single humans wouldn't exist",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p4606",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "And?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p442x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p4blk",
                    "author": "WhyJeSuisHere",
                    "body": "The basic premise of this is wrong. There is obviously nothing wrong with people having \u201cstandards\u201d whatever it may be. If you only want to date billionaire in their 20s that are super good looking, funny, smart etc\u2026 you can only blame yourself if you are single, so no, there is nothing wrong with that simply a personal choice. The male loneliness epidemic on the other hand is not an individual issue, but a societal one. It\u2019s not the responsibility of women or men to solve, but the responsibility of our society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p4wb2",
                    "author": "archival_assistant13",
                    "body": "The economy is terrible and although marriage can still be a means of social mobility for some, marriage itself is no longer as economically beneficial as it was before. You will literally be poor together, and many people do not want that extra stress on top of emotional incompatibility. I would say people should be steering towards being picky about their marriage partners, as they\u2019re supposed to support you and make your life easier (emotionally/financially/sexually etc), otherwise it would\u2019ve been better to remain single.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p5hv2",
                    "author": "newkid155",
                    "body": "There isn't a rise in single men there's a rise in single people.  Gen z is having less sex than previous generations, communication is at an all time low and connection is fading.  Humanity at large has a huge problem and one of its causes is right in the palm of your hand as you read this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p6fll",
                    "author": "Superfreakologist",
                    "body": "It's actually the best thing we could do for society. Every species changes due to mating pressures.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0retwz",
                    "author": "Sidian",
                    "body": "I take it you're a big fan of eugenics, then? \n\nWhat's being selected for here is height and facial symmetry and such, not intelligence or morality or anything useful in the modern age.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p6fll"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p6x8r",
                    "author": "jakeofheart",
                    "body": "The gene pool has become [broader and better](https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Gene-Pool). \n\nThey say that [80% of women in History](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=912673) have had an offspring.\n\nToday, it is estimated that [45% of women will be single by 2030](https://medium.com/hello-love/study-predicts-45-of-women-will-be-single-by-2030-1fbc99bad6a8#).\n\nSo if there is a better calibre of men that there was 50, 100 or 150 years ago, from a purely statistical perspective, women are being significantly more picky than their foremothers if they end up single.\n\nOr they don\u2019t know how or where to be found by the calibre of man that they want.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pr1zi",
                    "author": "LaMadreDelCantante",
                    "body": "Forced dependence on men, through legal and societal pressure, meant women historically haven't had the *option* to be picky. That's what's changed. Men actually have to bring something to the relationship besides just being gainfully employed and not horribly deformed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p6x8r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p75bd",
                    "author": "BenevelotCeasar",
                    "body": "I feel like the issue isn\u2019t the ethical responsibility that you should date down or something.\n\nBut go ahead and think about what happens to a society with a large population of angry, lonely, bitter, financially struggling men without an outlet? Uh\u2026. Rising fascist tendencies anyone? \n\nIt\u2019s a problem to address bc societal stability is not guaranteed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p7dmo",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So women should date down just to appease angry fascists",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k0p75bd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p7he9",
                    "author": "ChicknSoop",
                    "body": "In my opinion, its not that women should \"lower their standards\", but it comes off insanely hypocritical when we don't shame women for not dating guys who are \"too big, too short, too poor\", but then turn around and shame guys for not dating women and say they are misogynistic for doing the same thing.\n\nThe fact is, is that if men are going to be shamed for having standards, then so should women. It's a huge double standard.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qwi35",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p7he9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8edg",
                    "author": "Smith_mark5522",
                    "body": "The problem is when women's \"pickiness\" becomes dysfunction. Modern women have the the female equivalent of social media induced porn brain. None hyper stimuli men are invisible to them because they are frazzled by attention on dating apps and the beautiful people on social media.     \n\nThis is causing them to fall into toxic situations where a small amount of attractive but psychopathic men use them as glorified masturbatory age and waste their fertility window in unfulfilling loveless situationships/ soft harems.   \n\nThis will have devastating demographic implications down stream, demoralises the most productive people (young men) and cause or liberal advanced democracies to be replaced by authoritarian theocracies (the only groups free of these issues).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u2h7d",
                    "author": "offgridman1",
                    "body": "This should be top post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8edg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8ham",
                    "author": "parkway_parkway",
                    "body": "I think one thing is that technology and dating patterns matter, as well as personal choices.\n\nImagine the main dating app everyone uses is called \"sprinter\" and the only thing you're allowed to have on your profile is your time in a 100m sprint and your gender.\n\nWell a lot of women go on and get too many responses, so they filter them down, and the main reasonable filter to apply is to pick the fastest men, just because there is no other criteria to go on.\n\nIt's not that women hugely love 100m times or that's a major criteria or they have anything against the other men, it's just that all things being equal most women would prefer a healthy, fast, man to a slow one (who might be overweight or ill etc).\n\nIn this situation a lot of disabled men would be completely screened out when actually, if they got to know someone, they might be really nice.\n\nSame if you had a dating app called \"heighter\" where the only thing on the profile is height, basically all the short men are going to get screened out. Not because they're bad people and not because women are doing anything wrong, just because you have to screen on something and given very limited information you use what you have.\n\nSo yeah that's one of the issues with apps based on photos, the men with poor photos all get screened out. When really they might be great people if given a chance. \n\nThere's also another issue with app based dating and instagram based dating which is that it's very easy to see men as a disposable commodity and not give them a proper chance. After all there's always more just a click away so why bother with this particular one?\n\nSo yeah I think even if a woman keeps all their preferences and thresholds the same the way that people meet and which order different filters are applied and how many other options there are changes the outcome a lot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15tbiv",
                    "author": "jasmine-blossom",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve always said that I\u2019d likely never have dated my bf if all I had to go off of was a profile that he created with his selfies and his written profile. \n\nMost men aren\u2019t creating desirable digital images of themselves by which women can see them in their best light, but women\u2019s dating apps generally do present them in the best light. \n\nMy bf would have had a few bad-looking photos and some jokes about movies I\u2019ve never seen and don\u2019t care about. On the screen, he would have looked like yet another uninteresting loser.\n\nIn person, he is charming and kind and smart and has many wonderful friendship and relationship qualities. He still doesn\u2019t have the skills needed to represent that on a dating app.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8ham"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8pky",
                    "author": "Illustrious_Ring_517",
                    "body": "Just don't be mad when they go over to another country to find love",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pb32d",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why would I be mad?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8pky"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8ssv",
                    "author": "Life-Outlook-31",
                    "body": "Of course.\n\n\ud83d\udcb5 \ud83d\udcb5 \ud83d\udcb5",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p8xf8",
                    "author": "throwaway1276444",
                    "body": "If you are referring to the research cited in Paul Dolan's book on married women? The dude \"misinterpreted\" the data. He had to redact it later, and now every tom, dick and harry runs with this notion, because it is politically expedient for them. \n\nMarried women only reported being less happy, when they were separated from their husbands, not when he left the room. Overall research shows that married couples are happier than non married. Although parents seem to be less happier than non parents (They do however show greater life satisfaction). Something that I understand as a dad, since having kids is hard work, but also very fulfilling. \n\nAs for lonely men, generally nobody is blaming women, but more trying to figure out, why it is happening? There are many ideas floating around and some might land, unfavourably on women's evolutionary psychology. It still doesn't blame them, just a guess at explaining the issue. Solving does require society to help uplift men, make them more desirable to women. It's not a zero sum game, with winners and losers. It helps everyone. \n\nJust as an example, when crime statistics in my country were released by country of origin, it made certain nationalities seem like they were inherently more criminal. So everyone jumped on the bandwagon of calling minorities criminals. \n\nBut when the same statistics were controlled for different factors, it turned out that the numbers started to even out, if number of men living without a family were taken into account. So basically having women, children, parents and grandparents around made these men far less likely to commit crime. \n\nI am not conservative in my way of life at all, however I do have to accepts that there is a reason most cultures have promoted yoking men early in life, in order to create a more peaceful society. How we do this today, is a problem to be solved and having women join the debate is also important, as it affects you too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rszkr",
                    "author": "ricebasket",
                    "body": "Yeah there\u2019s danger living in a society with a bunch of socially unattached men. \n\nI dunno what to do about it, but it\u2019s not a comfortable thought.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p8xf8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0p94rj",
                    "author": "HannibalsGoodEye",
                    "body": "Women aren\u2019t too picky at all, standards are great. My problem is simply meeting them in the first place, feeling like I have options. I\u2019m not allowed to start a conversation with a woman I don\u2019t know lest I be classified as an entitled asshole interrupting your day. I can get 1 promising match/week on bumble or hinge or feeld but I\u2019m awkward at starting virtual conversations and women are only responding to the top 3 vibes of the 100 conversation starters they get. My problem is a lot of women actually like me but I\u2019m not allowed to approach, I have to be passive and wait to be picked. And of course I get ghosted constantly but when a woman gets ghosted once woohoo all men are trash etc.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0paqfg",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I agree double standards are bad but double standards existing doesn't mean all women are at fault and should change just to make up for the trash ones",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0p94rj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0payap",
                    "author": "Sc00tzy",
                    "body": "Women aren\u2019t lowering their standards in this generation, men are. In fact most men are staying single because of the disparity. Reading some of your replies you just seem like the pinnacle of the problem where you feel you don\u2019t owe anyone the most basic of respect. Just saying hi to someone is a problem for you? I think your issues are more of a you issue than a woman issue. Frankly you sound miserable so I hope you stop projecting your issues and are able to get some help.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w5y24",
                    "author": "Euphoric__Artist",
                    "body": "This is such a lie, such a huge lie that has been disproven time and time again and y\u2019all still deep throat it harder than Andrew Taints\u2026 well\u2026 you can fill in the rest",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0payap"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pdx2t",
                    "author": "LostSignal1914",
                    "body": "I agree with your general idea. However, as men and women age they tend to change and can often (but not always) come to regret they didn't build a home with someone. I say this as someone whose childhood dream was to be a hermit who happily spent life very much alone until their early 40s. I never pursued a relationship. It just kind of happened and only later did I decide it was worth committing to. \n\nI never fell in love or needed company. I enjoyed my own company. However, after building a loving relationship with my wife I now see what I was missing. Before, I never had a loving committed relationship. Now I can see the value in it. \n\nSo you are right to encourage people to pursue their own way in life. I would just say that people should really consider what they might be giving up.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15xqyp",
                    "author": "jasmine-blossom",
                    "body": "Most of us have had relationships already, even loving ones. We aren\u2019t into it. It doesn\u2019t work for us. The one relationship format devised by patriarchy to control women and ensure paternity inheritance does not work for many of us. It never did.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pdx2t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0peo0w",
                    "author": "RageAndWar",
                    "body": "How do you decide wether someone is worth talking to or not? If a guy walks up to you at a bar and tries to start a conversation, what tells you if you should engage or not? Is it his appearance? Is it how clean he looks? Is it how much money you think he\u2019s worth? Is it the first thing he says to you?\n\nMany women would likely answer this question in a variety of ways. Many women just look at whether he\u2019s attractive or not. Many will try to determine his net worth and base their reaction of that. Many others will listen to what he says and choose whether to respond. The only real consistency in answers would be that they make their decision after they\u2019ve made their judgement. This is mainly because of the shift in the feminist mindset that has been growing over time. Women are told that the man has to earn their time, that he has to provide something of value right off the bat. I\u2019m not saying this is a bad thing, it\u2019s just how things are.\n\nMen, on the other hand, tend to respond differently. If a woman walks up and tries talking to a man, he will most often reciprocate, before making judgement. Usually, they will determine their decision on wether or not to pursue a relationship during the conversation. Men feel that they are obligated to validate a woman\u2019s actions, because they are also told that they have to earn them. Men are expected to provide some value, which is why many of them become fixated on making a lot of money. \n\nSo, we have two very different approaches to meeting new people. There is merit to both of these approaches, and some criticism. Knowing your worth and understanding that you deserve to be treated well is a virtue in any person. We should all desire to be with the best person for us. The issue lies with trying to make judgement before you really get the chance to know the person. Your ideal man may have approached you already, he just wasn\u2019t looking very good that day. (That\u2019s a general \u201cyou\u201d, not you specifically, btw)\n\nOn the other hand, it is important to know that you also have to provide value in any relationship. You should be your best self for your best partner. This is the mindset that is pushed onto men, so they often internalize it. \nThis becomes an issue when you become so focused on your worth that you:\n\n1. Lose a lot of self esteem because you feel that you\u2019re never good enough.\n\n2. Lower your standards to just find any relationship because you feel that you can only obtain the bare minimum.\n\n3. Start viewing other men in the same way, that if they aren\u2019t making a lot of money, own a lot of expensive things, etc. that you are not a real man. This is the kind of thing people like Andrew Tate talk about a lot.\n\nI think the key is finding balance. If you think you are too good for everyone, you really miss out on a lot of potential happiness. Even some of the \u201cbad\u201d relationships I\u2019ve been in have at least taught me about what I do and don\u2019t find important in a relationship. I still enjoy the good times I\u2019ve had with them. This is not about abusive relationships, by the way. If your partner is abusing you, absolutely leave that person. \n\nOn the other hand, if you feel that you are never good enough for anyone, you\u2019ll just be very unhappy and lonely. Many men are victims of this. \n\nSo, men and women are being told the same thing, which affects both sides differently. Men have to earn the woman, a woman shouldn\u2019t have to settle, it\u2019s the man\u2019s job to make the woman want him. \n\nAs I mentioned earlier, this mindset compounds from their respective communities. Women tell each other that they are worth the greatest men in the world. They are valuable simply by their existence. Men tell each other that they have to make themselves desirable by any means necessary, usually money, because they aren\u2019t inherently worth very much. You see the problem.\n\nI think the real remedy is what I believe to be the remedy for many of our societal issues. We need common ground, understanding, and cooperation. Men and women are all valuable, just by being themselves. We should absolutely look out for ourselves and find someone we truly want to be with, but this often happens by being open-minded and willing to learn from your relationships. I know I\u2019ve dated women who I wasn\u2019t really attracted to at first, but the more I talked to them, the more I found I genuinely like their company. I think everyone deserves a chance, but that chance is their responsibility.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pf7ag",
                    "author": "Extension-Advance822",
                    "body": "I agree. Just apply that to men as well and we have no issue.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r6neg",
                    "author": "ECGMoney",
                    "body": "Yup. If \u201cwomen can\u2019t have abortions, and that\u2019s not men\u2019s\u2019 problem\u201d is a stance the majority of women actually get behind, I\u2019ll agree that male loneliness isn\u2019t women\u2019s\u2019 problem. Until then? Expecting us to give a shit about their problems is hypocritical.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pf7ag"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pfc47",
                    "author": "moutnmn87",
                    "body": "What you're complaining about happens a lot but the inverse where women complain about what is available in the dating pool is also very common. I very much dislike your framing of this as a problem that needs to be solved by anyone. I mean sure it is a major societal change that will have effects but I would argue a decrease in romantic relationships is not a problem in the first place although it could possibly be a symptom of problems in some individual cases. Everyone should be allowed to have standards and that includes having limits on how much one is willing to compromise on various things. Women or men not being willing or able to provide what people in the dating pool want is not a problem that needs to be solved by anyone. Being partnered with someone even if they happen to have goals that aren't very compatible with your own is really not something to aspire to. People really need to cool it with this idea that everyone needs a partner. Finding a partner should be about finding someone you happen to be compatible with not about twisting somebody's arm into becoming the partner you desire.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pggye",
                    "author": "Difficult_Mix_1870",
                    "body": "I agree with you completely, don't get me wrong but let's just make sure that those women are not the same who speak badly of men who marry younger or men who marry outside their country's borders because believe me when I say everyone has the right to live however they want with no judgment but it seems both sides of the gender spectrum are judging each other when it comes to such conversations with the other being against woman's standards and the other being against men's final choices for lifelong partners.\n\nAnd in all honesty, what you said about marriage might be true but for some women and that's only because of their age and beliefs, Younger people tend to be happy with that freedom but then the older they get they start to lose happiness in that freedom, The studies you read aren't conclusive, I use to think the same about marriage and taking shortcuts when it came to marital studies but a friend of mine said this when we were arguing, (I'm paraphrasing by the way) \n\n\"Take it from someone who observed this in real life with a lot of older woman in my neighborhood being single and my mother being a person who has been with my dad for over 20 years, And believe me when I say the difference in happiness is abnormally different, my mother always laughing, yelling and complaining about her family but still very happy to have us, We're not the richest, sometimes, we sleep with uncertainty of what we're gonna eat tomorrow and my parents don't always get along but after cooling off for a few hours they are the happiest people you'll ever meet, with some female neighbors actually envying my mom for her happiness and lusting for my dad, some even going as far as showing up at his place of work to market themselves to him and telling my mom lies about him being spotted with other women when we see him everyday, he doesn't go out, he doesn't have friends, let me not forget my aunt who celebrated that freedom but come age 35 swinging man to man looking for a man who's willing to commit to her it's been over 10 years and she's only found married men and just creepy a\\*\\*holes non of whom have committed to her, She receives a lot of money and has a stable job but thanks to the weird partners she's encountered and spent money on, her bank account is not ready for retirement.\"\n\nI first thought they were out of their mind but later confirmed the truth behind their statement as I grew closer with their family.\n\nSo I'm sorry but your take on marriage is inconclusive and might be based on people who have maybe been cheated on or experienced problems in the marriage where they expect the other partner to fix it and were unhappy when the other partner didn't fix it, It's really sad.\n\nI know I shouldn't rant on like this but take it from a loner who said they'll never date anyone ever again, Let's stop idealizing a lonely life for a happy life because you can become rich and live a superb life but like they say \"it's lonely at the top\" and people who genuinely live that high life tend to do whatever they want some even going as far as seducing married individuals as it excites them to see married or committed fools ruin their relationships for pleasure I practice H.R believe I've seen this more than once, I first started using the internet 2 years ago so I've had lots of time to observe this in real life and when I started accessing the internet for personal entertainment like social media, I was shocked to see how big of an issue unmarried individuals can be.\n\nDon't get me wrong I'm not saying this applies to everyone as some people are single for other reasons such as past traumas which makes them more happier when they are single and untouched and in control of their bodies, but a vast majority of the world's population knows exactly what I mean.\n\nAnd I'm not saying men are entitled to women's attention, I'm just saying let them have their standards but please be respectful of other people in your loneliness if you never find the perfect partner, The male demographic is reducing on this planet, and is very low in comparison to the female demographic, If every woman has that mindset of chasing the perfect men then believe me when I say most of them will end up single and sad as most of them have potentially set their standards to a potential only a few men can reach, you might find 20 females describing the perfect partner to be a man who is 1 amongst 20 men, it's impossible to satisfy them all.\n\nSo bottom line let's all have our standards and be respectful of the outcomes without shaming another demographic much like how I've seen women on YouTube and TikTok in their late 30's to 40's publicly shaming men who marry younger and those who have come to be known as the \"Passport Bro's\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0phf12",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Prsftt much agree with all. My only issue is (some) passport bros are also hypocrites. Claim western women are gold diggers and generalizing but then not realizing some foreign women just wanna marry them for their stronger western currency.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pggye"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pgkdf",
                    "author": "Cyberhwk",
                    "body": "> Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men?\n\nAnd that's why men are usually emotionally unavailable and internalize our feelings.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0phrah",
                    "author": "SteadfastEnd",
                    "body": "There's a difference between picky and **unreasonably picky.**",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchn5ik",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "Women are both",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0phrah"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pi1sc",
                    "author": "zaph239",
                    "body": "The whole premise of this is massively flawed because it is based on a false assumption. That all women have power in the sexual marketplace and can therefore be picky. The brutal reality, that feminist and women refuse to face, is sex is driven by reproduction.\n\nMillions of years of evolution have shaped our mating strategies and in the case of men it has shaped them to desire young and fertile women. So sure a 20 year old women will have her pick of men but a 40 or 50 year old women? No so much.\n\nThat is why the female rage movement, feminism, keeps growing. If women were really happy with the current dating situation, there wouldn't be such a huge female rage movement.\n\nFeminine rage is driven by the fact women age, they lose their looks and fertility. \n\nMy point is, the society you outline simply isn't possible. Young women can be picky, old and middle aged women can't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r2mq1",
                    "author": "ChaosRainbow23",
                    "body": "Lol. \n\nThis is some grade 'A' dude-bro manosphere nonsense, right here!",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pi1sc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0piuw6",
                    "author": "BarriaKarl",
                    "body": "Are they picky with their man, tho?\n\nBecause from where I stand more and more women are just fucking around with hunks. A lot of them rather be a side chick, or a temporary fling than choose a guy with a 6 score but that works hard.\n\nThere is a difference between 'we are just choosing the best for us' and 'we just fuck the 1% of men'.\n\nThe first? Go girl. The second? Well, look around.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rjuh7",
                    "author": "VeronaApproacheth",
                    "body": "And so what? Those may be their standards. So it shouldn't be an issue and goes back to what OP was saying : that women get to be picky in ways that make sense to them and don't necessarily make sense to you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0piuw6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pjg1j",
                    "author": "Charlea1776",
                    "body": "Yes. It is actually on each of us to make people feel like part of the community. Romance aside, we are social creatures that many have been raised to not be social.\n\nIn my experience at nearly 40 now, men are explicitly taught that being emotional, a perfectly natural, absolutely existent part of being human, will make them weak.\n\nThen, when you finally get through to them about expressing themselves, they might take a few years to figure it out.\n\nFrom a young age, women are taught how to talk about their feelings, no explicitly, but by experience because no one thwarts the instinct to do so.\n\nI want to say it's getting better, but I have friends with sons in school. By the end of the first year, their open, honest kid just stops talking about it. Sometimes it is because they cried at school because they fell or got teased, and THEN kids ridiculed them for crying! \n\nSo they learn to shut down to protect themselves. \n\nWhere as friends with school-age girls, their daughter cries and her friends rush over and people want to make her feel better and they express to their moms how nice their friends are.\n\nThat's on each and every one of us to put forth some effort to help. In doing so, everything you mentioned will improve. Don't get me wrong, some people clash and simply butt heads and do not mesh well, but most of the time, the other 8 people do get along with both of the other 2. So be supportive. \n\nIf someone tells you they are just stressed, don't take their inability to communicate personally. Ask if they just want to sit and hang out or take their mind off things for a bit. You're there for them. Hopefully, you gain enough clout that one day, they feel safe enough to tell you without fear of you telling everyone. It's not intentional. It's instinct from their entire life.\n\nBy no means do you put up with being treated like shit either. You say it clearly and calmly that behavior is mean. You didn't do anything to warrant it. You don't know what is going on with them, but communication is how you get through it, not treating me like that. I need some space now. We can talk when you have had some time to think (if you are comfortable with that last part). Anger in response to it only begets more anger. Lead by example and all of that. Outside of a rare occasion, you should recognize what you are actually seeing is a trauma response. While you did nothing wrong, again it isn't personal and you have to know that. It isn't fair, but life isn't always fair, yet we can do things to help balance those scales. Just by being a good human and nothing to do with relationships on a romantic level. People need to be able to be prior to being able to be together with someone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pjhm5",
                    "author": "SweetMojaveRain",
                    "body": "The thing is that its 6\u2019s and 5\u2019s holding out for 9\u2019s and 8\u2019s.\n\nWhen the 6/10 woman dates a 6/10 man, she thinks shes \u201csettling\u201d\n\nNo girlypop, thats your level.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q28y2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Who counts the numbers though?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pjhm5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pkfhh",
                    "author": "TomGNYC",
                    "body": "I think, in general, it's healthy to try things, to expand your friend group, to date, to learn how to talk to different genders and develop those skills. As an introvert, it really took me a long time to learn how to talk to women, to develop relationship skills, to spend quality time with them without feeling out of my element. I definitely spent a lot of time avoiding it out of fear of rejection and fear of complication and difficulty. It also takes a lot of time to figure out what you really want in a relationship and what type of person you want to be with. \n\nSo, for me, it depends a lot on the situation and motivation. If a woman (or a man) is avoiding relationships out of fear, I'd say it's a bad. I'd hate to think of women not living the lives they want out of fear. If, on the other hand, it's what they truly want, whether they're just not remotely interested, or maybe have a great passion for something else that isn't conducive to relationships, then clearly there's nothing wrong with that. \n\nIt has nothing to do with what men feel like they need, though. Women should try to follow a path that is the most healthy, happy, and rewarding for them. Men should do the same. It's only that way that the relationship works, anyway. If one or both parties are unhappy with their lives, the relationship is doomed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0plp26",
                    "author": "Coarse_bunny",
                    "body": "Whats bad is it feels unfair when someone equally as boring talks to me then doesent like me anymore for being just as boring.I understand that youre not attracted romantically or platonically to someone but why am i not allowed to be my regular self while others are.In my experience,venting and talking about things i found interesting only turned others off while i put a lot of effort into humouring and encouraging others doing the same.Its not women's fault because its done by men too but women are nicer about it.Its just really annoying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm1nk",
                    "author": "Responsible-End7361",
                    "body": "Amusingly this was right under the survey showing 75% of young women won't date a Trump voter.\n\nI think a lot of the anger is from a small group of guys who have made themselves unattractive to almost any woman by their attitude and their opinions on women's rights.  Yes, most Trump voters are older, but the younger ones are especially toxic, which is why women avoid them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pmdps",
                    "author": "Parking-Ad-5211",
                    "body": "Or that that survey was biased.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pm1nk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm4u4",
                    "author": "IbuKondo",
                    "body": "While I won't argue one way or the other, I will say that antisocial behavior has been rising steadily ever since the internet was conceived.\n\nNot to mention there's a pretty big movement of \"feminists\" that just hate men. Not all, and I wouldn't even say the majority. But enough of them to just say feminists, to take a line out of their book.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm5gd",
                    "author": "Parking-Ad-5211",
                    "body": "I feel like this would depend on what ways they are picky. If they are picky as in will not date anyone who doesn't make $150,000+/year and/or will only date men over 6' tall or something, then it says something about the society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pm9fo",
                    "author": "TikiTDO",
                    "body": "Honestly, the problem is our culture and society is not sure what roles to assign to men and to women. We have taught men to essentially ignore all emotional signals in favour of of being a stoic supporter of the family. This the the stereotype and idea that is blasted all over our media. Of course the net result is when it does come time to show emotion, most men are essentially emotionally stunted children, because that's what our society creates. If you leave a young boy watching our media and playing our games, these are they lessons they learn, because this is what most people want to see.\n\nAll those men that don't know any better; that's just how they turn out these days. In turn most of the men that are more emotionally mature are largely the result of someone, somewhere putting in the effort to teach the guy some better lessons, and most often that someone is going to be a spouse, though occasionally it might be a parent. Basically, you want people who have had proper emotional development, which in turn means they have taken the time to learn.\n\nSo already you want to select from among people that someone has already spent time and emotional labour on, but in a lot of cases those men are already with people, so either you accept that you're not likely to find the type of person you want and you will need to invest your time and effort getting someone to the point where you can live with them, or you adopt a parasitic lifestyle, seeking out men that are already valued and trying to take them.\n\nAt the same time, for the past century women have been getting more rights and powers. Throughout history the type of archetype that men value has been desired, but over the last century things have rapidly changed. We are now teaching girls a lot more about conflict resolution, power games, and high stakes negotiations. At the same time girls still have a much higher level of emotional maturity throughout their childhood, and given the more group-based nature of female communication, they will also get a chance to learn lessons in both the emotional as well as the practical fields.\n\nIn other words, come time to pick a life partner, women are currently starting off from a much more advanced spot. Of course it stands to reason that you wouldn't want to date someone with the emotional maturity half your age, but in practice all that really means is you have a higher probability to fall for a older, more mature, possibly married guy. This in turn reinforces the issue, because in truth nobody wants many of the man that the last few decades have spit out.\n\nOh, and as for emotional maturity. A lot of time when people speak of that what they really mean is that the other person obeys all the unspoken social rules real well. In other words usually it's really social maturity that you're measuring; how good is the guy at acting out in public, and how comfortable to you feel being around them. When men are genuinely in touch with their and open with their emotions that genuinely puts people off, unless that man is very, very close.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pn17v",
                    "author": "xDendretic",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s healthy to be able to have standards, but the reality is if we swing too hard with unrealistic standards (not saying men don\u2019t also have unrealistic standards) women will be the one paying the price. In all fairness this shouldn\u2019t be put on women, but at the end of the day might makes right and men will be the be the majority force that is fighting. If women began to only date the top 30%, 20%, 10% of men? You\u2019d see a large rise in incels and right wing conservatism that promote women being homebodies or are forced to care for children. I mean we\u2019re already starting to see the right to choose taken away and I expect more things slowly being taken away in the future (this won\u2019t happen overnight).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pnw9r",
                    "author": "stewartm0205",
                    "body": "Only if they are so picky that most don't get married and have children and that society slowly diminishes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0po03a",
                    "author": "RealDrugDealer",
                    "body": "I mean plenary of all their animal species do it so I wouldn\u2019t see why it\u2019s particular weird for human females to do it. It\u2019s literally ingrained in their DNA to choose the male with the best traits to pass on to their children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0po3ij",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "Complaining about getting a bad result for an attempt at being kind is pretty standard for both sexes. \n\nFor example, women who make an effort to work extra hard at work with the hopes they'll get a promotion at work and get passed over may complain that their bosses suck, and that their workplace sucks.\n\nDoes their boss suck? Is their workplace unsuitable? Maybe, maybe not. But it's pretty normal complaining, and most people would look at you weirdly if you said \"If managers are picky that just means that women aren't suitable for promotion.\" Some women, and managers, are unreasonable, some are not, and it's reasonable for people who get rejected to be unhappy and complain.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pofw5",
                    "author": "objectdisorienting",
                    "body": "I think it is worth examining the wider societal factors that are leading more and more people to feel isolated, alienated and lonely, and while I think this is a somewhat universal problem, gender and gender roles play into it. I'm going to focus on the general problem and the Male side of the coin, because I understand it the best and it's most relevant to your view.\n\nIn the US, rates of depression have been trending up for a long time. Self reported happiness and wellbeing have been dropping. Suicides have gone up.\n\nThere's a lot of causes. But I think Social media in particular has done a great deal of work in making people feel more disconnected from others, because it acts as a substitute for social interaction that simultaneously is addictive and falls short of the real thing. I also think the window shopping, commodified nature of dating apps compounds this problem, as does the decline of institutions that previously provided a sense of community, such as churches (I say this as an atheist). Moreover, I think that there has been a general trend towards people thinking of social relationships in more transactional terms. COVID compounded all these problems.\n\nIn our current society, both men and women judge the worth of a man by their ability to find a partner. If you're a virgin or otherwise haven't had much romantic success as a man, you will be constantly surrounded by messages that this is something that is inherenly shameful. Additionally, men on average have higher libidos than women (there's tons of variance obviously) and tend to have sexual thoughts more often. If you're a man who feels lonely, isolated and disconnected from the world, these factors are more likely to make you feel like your lack of ability to find a partner is not only one part of the problem, but the entire problem. This compounds with sexual frustration often getting emotionally mixed up with general frustration at loneliness and isolation.\n\nI want to pause for a moment and talk about incels, the redpill, and pickup artists. The majority of men who feel lonely and isolated, even those who blame it on their lack of romantic success usually don't think it's a conspiracy by women, they blame it on themselves. Incel, PUA and redpill types are the vocal, very obnoxious minority. However, the reason these people have gained a following is because they are both empathetic to lonely men, and sometimes promise them a way out. It's ultimately a grift, but it's an effective grift because it manipulates emotionally vulnerable people who otherwise get very little sympathy.\n\nUltimately, I think collectively as a society we need to rethink our relationship with social media. We need focus on forming connections in real life and recapturing a lost sense of community with each other.\n\nSo to respond to your view directly, individual women making the choice to stay single isn't wrong, but the macro trend is part of a body of evidence pointing towards unhealthy changes in our society that we should be talking about and thinking about. These changes are not the fault of women specifically, but of technology and cultural changes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pqdzk",
                    "author": "noyrb1",
                    "body": "Who\u2019s calling for lower standards? I think there\u2019s plenty of career women with a beach bum or ex convict sleeping at their house all day while they work lol",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ps224",
                    "author": "BerryBogFrog",
                    "body": "My boyfriend's cousin is one of these single men who blame women for his being single. He has not had a girlfriend since the early 2000s, why? It's because of his personality and expectations. \n\nHe is in his mid 40s, he blames things like gamer gate and \"me too\" for his problems. He has had chances to date women in his RP groups and online games, but he turns them down with various reasons such as \"too fat\" \"ugly\" \"tattoos\"  \"dyed hair\" \"too old\" etc. \n\nHis ideal woman is young (early 20s/late teens), no tattoos or piercings,  light skin, and preferably Japanese. He wants a woman he can groom to cook and clean for him the way his mother does.\n\nHe also constantly talks down to women and mansplains things.\n\nHes funny, smart, is not a bad looking guy, and has a nice phat ass, but its 100% his personality and how he views women that makes him single.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15wr93",
                    "author": "jasmine-blossom",
                    "body": "Yup. I\u2019ve talked to A LOT of these men and most of the time, they do not want to go to therapy and they do not want to work on their misogyny and entitlement issues. They see that some other guys have managed to get laid and married without working on themselves and are jealous they couldn\u2019t do it and they blame women for it. They refuse to work on themselves at all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ps224"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ps3cb",
                    "author": "paradox037",
                    "body": "IMO the real issue is not the high standards women appear to have, but the inconsistency and misrepresentation of what is truly expected of men to deserve a relationship. People get understandably upset and muddy the conversational waters, but the real issue is the lack of a straight answer to the question \"WTF do you want from me?\"\n\nNearly every actionable standard men are seemingly expected to meet is simultaneously a deal-breaker for most women. We're at a crossroads in the predominant culture shift in which men simultaneously have to meet both old and new expectations, *even when they're mutually exclusive*. For example, men are told to be vulnerable, then are immediately judged as unmanly and therefore unattractive for it, and/or have that moment of vulnerability viciously exploited down the line for leverage or even simply to inflict pain.\n\nThe expectations men are being held to aren't just high, they're fundamentally impossible to meet. And since men are raised to believe that their desirability to women is synonymous with their value as people (although their value is usually framed on the left side of the equal sign, in contrast to women's), that leaves women holding the keys to men's success, and therefore enforcing the standards. It's not fair to either party, and that's precisely why a society with this issue is fundamentally flawed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pse5a",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Isn't the issue that people are not monoliths? Of course there is contradictions. I mean no offense but kind of your *general you fault if you actually believed if someone tells you women like zyz therefore all do",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ps3cb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0psv5m",
                    "author": "Canteaman",
                    "body": "Are women picky though? It's been my experience that they are not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ptcxu",
                    "author": "Fresh-South2943",
                    "body": "There are problems that result from it, you can look to China to see what happens when men don't have partners. Higher crime, unhappiness, suicide rates, etc... Women obviously still have the right to choose despite all that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pttg9",
                    "author": "lumberjack_jeff",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong from women's perspective, certainly.\n\nHowever, the same thing could be said from men's perspective about a society 100 years ago in which women can't vote or own property.\n\nIf a society isn't working for one sex, the other doesn't have sole moral authority to explain why it's just fine.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r67bo",
                    "author": "ECGMoney",
                    "body": "This is 100% on point. If \u201cmen can\u2019t find love, sorry, that\u2019s not women\u2019s\u2019 problem!\u201d Is the stance we\u2019re considering acceptable, then the following are acceptable stances for men by the exact same logic:\n\n\u201cWomen can\u2019t get abortions. Sorry, not my problem.\u201d \n\n\u201cWage gap. Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cWomen facing harassment in the workplace from their coworkers. Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cSingle mom can\u2019t pay her bills? Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\n\u201cWoman pay higher prices/have to pay for female hygiene products? Sorry, not my problem.\u201d\n\nWhy should any man ever give half-a-shit about a female-centric problem when male-specific problems are laughed at and spat on?\n\nThese types of stances are selfish, divisive, and terrible for society. It\u2019s unhealthy to give absolutely 0 shits about the other genders\u2019 problems, but here we are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pttg9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pu0m5",
                    "author": "RadioFreeAmerika",
                    "body": "In the end, we are all better off caring about each other instead of being atomized even further until no one has any agency left anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pudp7",
                    "author": "uniqueusername316",
                    "body": "\"People act like...\", \"A lot of men...\", \"How can you act like...\", \"You just don't make effort...\", \"...often people talk about...\"\n\nWHO ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT/TO? Please talk to these people directly and instead of ambiguously ranting into the void of reddit.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0punjv",
                    "author": "suiluhthrown78",
                    "body": "I believe the research shows that that the happies are married men, then married women, then there's a gap and then its single women and then single men\n\nSo if its societal happiness you're aiming for then more people getting married to each other would be the way to get there",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0putps",
                    "author": "101ina45",
                    "body": "I think I'll have a unique view as a man in this one.\n\nBackground: I'm a black, bi, agnostic, late 20's married man, white collar job, married (we're ethnically non-monogamous) and in the north east. I am not a \"masculine guy\". At 5'10 and 140 soaking wet, I'm rail thin. Based on the Andrew rate types, I should be a virgin in a basement. And yet, I had plenty of enjoyable hook ups and am now married to a wonderful woman.\n\nWhen I met my wife, we broke all the conventional rules of dating. Met her parents on the fourth date, didn't have sex for a few months (she was a virgin at the time), and she didn't do any of the \"traditional\" things like changing her last name.\n\nThis didn't bother me because I've never been a traditionalist.  Fast forward to now and on the ENM dating apps I've had the experience of talking to men on said apps (both straight and bi) and holy fuck, I understand now why so many women are happy single.\n\nOffensive language, dick pics from the jump, racism, etc. If you can think of it, I've seen it.\n\nA lot of guys really need to reflect on why no women (romantic or platonic) don't want to talk to them before they point the finger at an entire gender.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pv0vy",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I mean I'm glad someone understands but this doesn't change my view. Thanks for in put though",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0putps"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pva1p",
                    "author": "0k0n0miyaki",
                    "body": "This was a good one OP they are coping and seething in here hard",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtipe",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pva1p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pvx7u",
                    "author": "CINECITIZEN",
                    "body": "You shouldn\u2019t have to be 6 feet and make 200k to be treated like a human being\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1smy",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Uhh... People treat you like human. Just not a potential mate",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pvx7u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pvxe9",
                    "author": "0k0n0miyaki",
                    "body": "Comments are hilarious. When men are picky it\u2019s \u201cbiological hard wiring\u201d and when women are lucky it\u2019s the collapse of civilization",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1qg9",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah I've seen people being hypocrites when it comes to virgins",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pvxe9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pw048",
                    "author": "The_Mura",
                    "body": "In a sense, there is some onus on women to lower their standards, because the rise of dating apps has inflated women's standards to much higher than they previously were. I believe 100% that the male loneliness problem is an unintended consequence of dating apps. These apps provide a greater amount of selection than previously existed, and that greater selection leads to greater choosiness from women, resulting in less overall pairing up for everyone, since the women are all believe they deserve the nest men available. This is not a problem that men can solve on their own, because platonic friendship only goes so far. \n\nBut at the same time, it's true that we can't expect individuals to lower their standards. Many men, myself included, are just as guilty of being overly choosy, but I still think most would agree that women are still way choosier than men on average. If the problem is to be solved, then it HAS to involve women lowering their standards, and if that can't be done, then it is a problem that will continue to exist, and men will just have to get used to it, as they have done for pretty much every problem that men face. Society has never been keen on solving men's problems, so really this is just par for the course.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q4lm6",
                    "author": "Parking-Ad-5211",
                    "body": "A major issue I see especially but not only on Reddit is people assuming that every man who has issues dating is some misogynistic incel who is a ticking time bomb or something and everyone who is decent or better will never have those issues. It's a just world fallacy really.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pw048"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0px72b",
                    "author": "KrabbyMccrab",
                    "body": ">there's nothing wrong with society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single\n\nThere's a non-trivial correlation between single young men and crime rates. Having children lowers the testosterone levels in men, lowering aggressive behavior. Raising a family also fosters attachment to the community around you. Both lowering crime rates in the community. \n\nWhile it may not be WOMENS job to fix this, it's certainly UNHEALTHY for a society when there's a bunch of roaming young guys who simply don't give a fuck.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pxazn",
                    "author": "0k0n0miyaki",
                    "body": "Lots of weird equivalencias being made here between dating and getting access to human rights. \u201c if it\u2019s not a women\u2019s problem to make sure I have a girlfriend then it\u2019s not men\u2019s problem to make sure that women can work and vote\u201d. Ummmm\u2026 okay\u2026.. I guess\u2026..",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1i1m",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yup. Definitely weird for me",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pxazn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pxlvk",
                    "author": "RiffRandellsBF",
                    "body": "Do you complain about Leo dating <25 year old woman?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q1fma",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. Not sure the relevance either",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pxlvk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pxs4s",
                    "author": "TrashApocalypse",
                    "body": "Yes, this is called evolution and we need it now more than ever.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rfp07",
                    "author": "Sidian",
                    "body": "If all we care about is humanity getting taller and having more symmetrical faces, then yes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pxs4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pykr2",
                    "author": "controllrevival",
                    "body": "I agree, and I do well with women so it\u2019s whatever to me. I will say that it is women\u2019s problem too though because a lot of lonely, single men are desperate and will act out. Now I don\u2019t think that women should lower their standards, but maybe something like prostitution should be legalized so that all these guys with all this sexual frustration can go there instead of shooting up places, etc",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q18dh",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Sure. I'm all for legalizing sex work",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pykr2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pz682",
                    "author": "End3rWi99in",
                    "body": "Yeah sure as long as this is true for men too. You don't have to be in a relationship if you don't want to be in one and you should absolutely not date anyone purely in the interest of not being lonely. Learn to love yourself and you'll never be lonely anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pz945",
                    "author": "FlickoftheTongue",
                    "body": "While in principal there's nothing wrong with your title statement, the issue arises when people have criteria that is so exclusive that very few people on planet earth meet that criteria.\n\nLet's remove gender from the equation really quickly. There is nothing on planet earth that you can get 100% of your wants and not compromise in any way shape or for. What we are seeing now is a rise of Individuals so unwilling to compromise on criteria that is frankly not that important that they are excluding out basically an entire group. That said, those who choose to remain single, thats their choice. Those that want a relationship that won't tolerate any deviation from their standard, that exhibit things that violate their same standard or are toxic, particularly when It comes to behavioral things, are living in fantasy land.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pzbdw",
                    "author": "atred",
                    "body": ">People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix.\n\nWho? Seems to me like a strawman, but then again, there are many idiots in the world, I'm sure you could find an example, but the question is, is this a prevalent view? If it's not why worry about it?\n\n>Should women change their behaviour?\n\nIf they are happy with their choices they should definitely not change anything. If they are not happy with their choices they should re-examine them. I think this is pretty straight forward. Groups of people should not be responsible for the happiness of other groups -- people at most can work to keep themselves and their loved ones content and even that is hard work sometime.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tf16u",
                    "author": "Regular-Chapter-7101",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not actually a straw man nor is it the responsibility of just a couple of idiots. Many articles when talking about men\u2019s loneliness seem to blame the rise in single men insinuating that a relationship would solve a man\u2019s loneliness.\n\nThey look at romantic relationships with women to solve it more than friendships with either gender",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0pzbdw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0pzr5v",
                    "author": "eidhrmuzz",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t want to change your core view.  Cause.. people should live how they want to live as long as it doesn\u2019t cause harm.  And anyone choosing a single life isn\u2019t harming. \n\nBut as far as individual basis goes\u2026. It\u2019s good to be kind to a lonely person of any gender or sex.  You know.  As long as they\u2019re not a giant douche bag and doing so causes you harm.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q2m4w",
                    "author": "Ill-Discussion7043",
                    "body": "No, we live in a society where a growing number of women sacrifice their fertile years for the sake of their job/career.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q40uq",
                    "author": "GB-Pack",
                    "body": "> If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women\n\nI\u2019ll start by stating this isn\u2019t a problem that can be solved by men or women alone and rather is a societal issue that won\u2019t be easy to solve. Beauty and dating standards have evolved very quickly since the inception of the internet and these standards are often unrealistic or unattainable. Standards aren\u2019t just a single value, but include a multitude of factors. Some women may have the standard of a kind man who treats others with respect. Another women may have a standard based purely off height or salary. With the prevalence of social media and the increase of economic pressures, that second mindset is becoming more and more common. I\u2019d argue **both men and women** don\u2019t need to lower their standards, but adjust the focus on their standards. The 2 woman I used in my example don\u2019t necessarily have higher or lower standards than each other, but they value different qualities. Neither have a responsibility to change their standards, but their subsequent happiness with their partner may differ greatly because of their different standards. This may be one of the many causes for married women being unhappier than single women.\n\nTLDR: Women don\u2019t need to lower their dating standards, but that doesn\u2019t mean some people shouldn\u2019t change their standards. The qualities being used for dating standards are much more important than how high or low standards are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q44cw",
                    "author": "oreocookielover",
                    "body": "I think that the reason that we should care is that that the people who are putting in the work to teach these men who are bigger than and can overpower some women that violence and hate towards the people that do not provide instant gratification is the answer to their frustrations are using our right to avoid socializing with people that don't make the cut to do so.\n\nWhen there are forces working to relegate us to second  class citizenship with your actions, then you can not care. Otherwise, it is irresponsible to society. You want a society fine with women and their choices, snuff out words of shitty people with your action.\n\nI sometimes spend too much time really thinking about a person's (any gender) intentions, but I'd be damned to prove people like Andrew Tate right about my gender jumping to conclusions because a misguided man with 0 life experience with outside of their abused mother decided to strike up conversation with me. I'm not special enough to think that every person I talk to is gonna want to hit on me rather than just asking for some human decency. No woman or man is. In more crass words, you ain't getting my pussy, but you are getting my ear. \n\nI'd want well adjusted men to do the same and prove disillusioned women wrong about men. It makes the world a better place, and really does help show that not everyone of a gender is a collective hive mind out to get you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q4abp",
                    "author": "Maximum-Country-149",
                    "body": "Let me just say that, taken at face value, I agree with what you're saying. In the micro and macro levels, being selective about one's partner is *absolutely* a good thing; if you're making a lifelong commitment it damned well *better* be with someone you trust absolutely.\n\nBut!\n\nI think viewing the problem through the lens of \"boo hoo men aren't getting laid\" is missing the bigger picture. The problem isn't that they aren't pairing up, the problem is *why*, with the reduced marriage rate being only one symptom of the larger issue (while the massively inflated rates of suicide, depression, and alcoholism provide other symptoms).\n\nThat problem being that men are often demonized simply for being men.\n\nI don't mean in the sense that they get called out on bad behavior that comes naturally; a lot of behavior that comes naturally is stupid and immature, that's just how it works, as maturity is a product of experience. I mean in the sense of a genuine prejudice against men for just existing in a time and place.\n\nIf the world around you keeps telling you that you're dangerous, undeserving of whatever blessings you have and that your presence strikes fear into the hearts of otherwise good people, how do you expect that to manifest? Reduced confidence, at an absolute minimum. A self-effacing sense of self-worth. An over-tolerance for bad behavior from the opposite sex. At the very *least*, a sense that outside parties can't be trusted to provide support in the event of hardship.\n\nIt's not at all surprising that this might get in the way of getting a date. Which on an individual level, *sucks eggs*, and obviously that's the sort of thing you're going to hear complaints about. But the epidemic is a much bigger and more nebulous problem than that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q52tg",
                    "author": "blz4200",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t really see anything wrong it either. Historically a small percentage of men with desirable traits have always had a harem of women.\n\n I think it\u2019s still pretty much the same just without women realizing it. The top 1% of men that women go for tend to have multiple girlfriends, side-chicks, wives/ex-wives, baby mothers, etc. Alot of women are openly okay with it as well.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchnsoo",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "Brutal",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q52tg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q5dzr",
                    "author": "jeanralphio777",
                    "body": "I think men just want women to put less weight into innate traits that can\u2019t be changed. At least as far as looks go. I work out every day but being short with male pattern baldness in my twenties is still what I feel I get judged on first. Men mostly just care if a woman is fit which anyone can do, albeit it\u2019s a lot harder for some. Literally any woman can be attractive if they\u2019re fit.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchnufh",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "I wish ugly women stopped having kids",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q5dzr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q61ep",
                    "author": "Not-you_but-Me",
                    "body": "This reminds me of an anecdote I was given in undergrad about inequality. Most people would rather have nothing than a highly unequal gain. It\u2019s not that there\u2019s anything morally wrong with an unequal outcome, just that the irrational reaction to that outcome is bad for society.\n\nInequality is usually the result of efficient competition, but incurs real costs. Women being picky is superficially efficient, but incurs real costs as well. \n\nYou\u2019re absolutely right, it\u2019s not unethical for women to be picky. The issue is that a lack of pickiness from men combined with pickiness from women leads to a situation where a lot of women share a few men. This isn\u2019t me whining about not getting a date, as I seem to benefit from this situation. Contrary to what I\u2019ve heard, I find it incredibly easy to sleep with and date lots of women. \n\nJust as women choosing to be picky is perfectly moral, so is men choosing to sleep around.\n\nI\u2019ve noticed that of the women I\u2019ve been with, they tend to only have one guy at a time. It\u2019s not that they\u2019ve established exclusivity, just that this is their preference. That means when the guy decides to settle with one, the rest who otherwise want a relationship have wasted a lot of time. As for the guys who have trouble, this thread speaks for itself. A bunch of angry, resentful young men are hardly good for society.\n\nIs anyone at fault here? No \n\nDo I have a solution? Nope\n\nI think this is a societal issue but not the responsibility of women to fix. It would probably be better for society is women on average lowered their standards just as it would be for men not to sleep around, but it isn\u2019t fair to ask individuals to do that. In other words if I had wheels I\u2019d be a wagon.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q6lbs",
                    "author": "lochmoigh1",
                    "body": "I think there's a lot of truth to the red pill dating stuff. A 10/10 guy will still sleep with a 7/10 girl. They prefer that because they are easy for a 10/10 guy. The 10/10 girl is not dating 7/10 guys. \n\nThis creates where a average/above average girl thinks they actually have a chance at a long term relationship with a stud man when they are really just another hole for the guy to stick his cock in. Where as the average guy is just lucky to get an average looking girl if not they must date down. \n\nAnd yeah girls are very shallow. They will take a very attractive man even if he's a coked out cheater I've seen it plenty. You can say the same for men but like I said, dating is so much easier for a women because the standards are much higher for a man",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7if8",
                    "author": "nhavar",
                    "body": "Yesterday at the bookstore I saw this book title \"the story of art **without men**\". I thought about how triggering that might be for some men to see and what arguments might be had about it. Knowing that it happens on a regular basis any time men aren't the focus or a significant contributor to a story. It goes the same for women's daily lives. If women are living without a man then men are offended by that. It grates against their sense of self-worth because their identities are so wrapped up in notions of leadership, being a protector, and being THE provider. They are the person to *complete* the woman, the woman is literally *part of them* (going along with Biblical mythos). That dovetails into traditional roles for men and women, subservient/servant women and ultimately to the only reason women exist for some men, as receptacles for children. So by \"being picky\" and staying single you are denying a man their *right* to further their genetic dynasty. \n\nHow dare you! /s\n\nOne of my daughter's ran into this mindset with her boyfriend. He was a trainwreck who spent most of his time drunk and texting other women. When she got pregnant and decided she wanted to break up and move out on her own he lost it. He demanded that he stay with her \"to keep *his* family together\", \"to keep *his* child from being raised by a single mom\", and \"who is going to protect you or provide for you\". Of course, she was already taking care of herself doing all the cooking, cleaning, working full time, paying all of the rent, and taking care of him when he was drunk/sick. It would have been easy enough to eject him from her daily life and focus her efforts on her child, alone. He could pay child support and visit his child like many other parents do, but that wasn't good enough **for him**. \n\nThese are the hurdles men need to get over. If women are picky there's sometimes very good reasons for why they are picky. At the same time, men don't talk to other men who are single by choice and suggest they are missing out. Often times the conversations are the opposite \"Oh man I wish I were single again\" or \"Ah that's the life, worry free\" or some other such notion. But when it's a woman she's avoiding her obligation to society.\n\nWhat I wish we taught children more as they grew up is a sense of self reliance. I feel like most times we're prepping them for marriage (and not in good ways), but we aren't teaching them the sort of self-sufficiency and individual identity that they need to survive without another person constantly in their space. \n\nAny time I hear a young man complain about not being able to find \"the one\" or struggling in dating I ask \"what do you like to do\". They come back with things a couple would do, not them as individuals. That often exposes that they don't have many identity building experiences. They're not traveling, they're not learning, they're not exploring who they are as a person, they don't have specific passions. It's all \"I like music and video games\" and then you ask what and it's all surface level things; Nothing about how music has impacted their lives or the history of their favorite artist or digging into philosophy of choices in video game play styles. It's just a \"I like turtles\" moment. \n\nThen they wonder why women aren't kicking down their door to date them or date them for a minute and fade away. It's like they're not people, they're zombies. \n\nWomen too. We can't say it is entirely men who do this... but... it's the women who are accused of being too picky, while men who are \"picky\" can go to another country to find their ideal partner. Can you imagine the outrage that would happen if women were mail-order grooming? ROFLMAO at the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would happen on that one. \n\nAt the end of the day we each have to be responsible for who we are as individuals. It's not our responsibility to ensure that someone else finds a mate. It is our responsibility to be worthy of a mate (or friendship, or family association, etc). So we should focus more on who we are as people, what interests we have, what goals we have as individuals. Then we can align on those tangible things. That's really what good relationships are about; Each of you have your own goals and you find out where the overlaps are, where shared goals exist, how you work toward those shared goals and also how you facilitate your partner's goals and they facilitate your own.\n\nLove yourself. Live a life you are proud of. Share your passions. Connect when you find commonality. Keep growing for your own sake and no one else's. And men, support your fellow men (and your children) in getting out of this provider/protector/patriarch rut. Help them become robust individuals with experiences and passions all their own.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7mv5",
                    "author": "BMFeltip",
                    "body": "I agree but saying a general group of people is on average happier then a specifically unhappy group of people is so silly even if you are aware it's obvious.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7q6o",
                    "author": "obsquire",
                    "body": "Most of these single women will reproduce, and likely multiple women with the same man.  This is polygamy.  That's what's at stake.  A greater fraction of men will be left out of the gene pool each generation.  The marriage tradition for the last few thousand years kept the peace because men potentially left out of the gene pool have their legacy at stake, and thus are more likely to engage in violence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q9dwh",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So women should be forced to sleep with men because violent men exist?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q7q6o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7rcr",
                    "author": "maclovesdennis",
                    "body": "I think the issue is that many single women want a version of a man that doesn't exist.\n\nSingle men are always called out holding women to \"Instagram model standards.\" Why aren't women told that the knight on a white horse doesn't exist?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q7v1w",
                    "author": "BoomerHunt-Wassell",
                    "body": "\u201cPicky\u201d women literally drive evolution.  Thank for for picky women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q92vj",
                    "author": "sirbingas",
                    "body": "Your friends probably just don't feel safe talking to you, especially if it's multiple people that are/were truly your friends. Also are you sure they are even your friends? Do they let you vent to them? Maybe they don't want to have that kind of relationship with you. \n\nIt sounds like you are just projecting your relationship issues with men onto men as a whole. Maybe you should reframe the way you think about these things and put more accountability on yourself. No one really cares if you don't want to talk to them or if you want to stay single, it's all just self perceived importance.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q9dca",
                    "author": "False_Major_1230",
                    "body": "You know that if young men are pushed hard enough they will take power with violance and change the system to suits them. Nothing breeds violent extermism unlike sexually repressed young men being called names by everyone",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0q9idr",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So basically fuck your husband so he's happy so he doesn't go vivjolent?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0q9dca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qamnm",
                    "author": "Glass_Candy_4315",
                    "body": "Hahaha",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qatxd",
                    "author": "BigTitsNBigDicks",
                    "body": "Dating inequality & wealth inequality are closely linked issues.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qbe8b",
                    "author": "SethEllis",
                    "body": "There are a number of societal problems that can potentially arise given current trends.  \n\n\n* Men without children or purpose are more likely to turn to violence and revolution.\n* Single people, especially single females, have less favorable options for end of life care.\n* Declining demographics have negative economic consequences.\n\nIt is therefore beneficial to society overall for that rise in single men to reverse.  It's just a question of how we reverse that trend.  \n\n\nWhich then brings us to the question of why does it seem that people are pinning the issue on women?  To find a solution we first have to understand why the change is occurring in the first place.  Most believe that the rise of the online dating place has led women to becoming more picky.  They believe that women look at their options comparatively, and tend to go after the top 20% of men.  If that is true, then there is nothing that men can do to resolve the rising number of single men.  An individual man might be able to get into the top 20% by working on themselves, but that doesn't solve anything for the other 80% of men they beat out.    \n\n\nHowever, I would argue that theory does not completely fit with the data.  The rate of single people has been on a steady rise since the 60's.  So it is more likely that the change comes from things like the increase in the labor participation rate of women or the introduction of birth control rather than the rise of online dating.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qblzv",
                    "author": "DeadFyre",
                    "body": ">Why should women lower their standards?\n\nWhy should men lower their standards? Why should anyone? Here's a really crazy idea: if modern humans are so repellent to each other that they're unwilling to reproduce, then let's call it natural selection and let it happen. It's not as if we're in danger of running out of human beings.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qbt15",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yup. Fine by me",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qblzv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qch0y",
                    "author": "Nicobie",
                    "body": "Men can and should be 'picky' too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qfs1n",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah sure? Not sure how it would change my view",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qch0y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qchrb",
                    "author": "lionstigersbearsyay",
                    "body": "I think it's fine to be selective over good things. If someone rejects you over astrology, you probably dodged a bullet anyways",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qd7vs",
                    "author": "Redditcritic6666",
                    "body": "There's nothing wrong with a society where people are picky with their mate or choose to remain single.... \n\nThe problem again, just like with any issues involve genders, is that there's double standards and currently men are critized when they are picky with their mate. i.e: men choosing to not date single mothers, obese women, older women, or when men choose to remain single.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qdldb",
                    "author": "Waywardpug",
                    "body": "I don't think that male loneliness is a woman's problem to fix, it's a societal problem. I want to address your point on \"men don't speak up\". \n\nI don't think men are socialized to communicate feelings well. Every man I know has been bullied for being emotional, and it's not from random jerks, its often from friends, parents, or other people in roles of power over them as adolescents. You learn very quickly that sharing certain emotions is not safe, and this feeling is reinforced rather harshly if you have a significant other who abuses your trust through mocking, spreading private info shared in confidence, blackmail. \n\nAnd no, this doesn't mean women created the problem, but why would I trust that \"you\" won't do the same to \"me\"? Suffering in silence can feel a lot more comfortable than risking social abuse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qeylv",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Isn't that the sane with women. Why should they trust the man to not attack them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qdldb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qdn6c",
                    "author": "NittyGrittyDiscutant",
                    "body": "it goes both ways\n\nthe less desireable men and women just die out, evolution",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qe89n",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Sounds fine",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qdn6c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qeeuv",
                    "author": "FoxyLadyAbraxas",
                    "body": "Real talk. Men should be just as choosy. Women can sense the desperation in the kind of man who crushes on any woman that gives him attention. It's not a good look.\nOn the flip side, the lack of compassion that some women online have for male suffering is pretty bad, and suggests a severe lack of empathy. Not pointing at OP, but asking \"why is it my problem that **** are suffering\" is kinda gross.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qhg0l",
                    "author": "faithiestbrain",
                    "body": "I think the true part of this is that in your day to day life you should be more kind in general, and I don't know anyone to whom that doesn't apply. \n\nThere's no reason to get sidetracked by gender nonsense, just be nicer to people. It costs you little to nothing and can help someone else out immensely who's struggling.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qhtbg",
                    "author": "mareno999",
                    "body": "i mean there is some evolutionary biology here at play, sosial structure theory says that women are more picky when it comes to a mate, as they carry more risk and therefore go for older partners often. While males dont have that 9 month minimum commitment.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qi4od",
                    "author": "CreativeBasket1813",
                    "body": "That's right.\ud83d\ude01",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qj305",
                    "author": "rathen45",
                    "body": "Everyone is shitty because nobody is psychic. We're all just doing our best on  a dying world. Don't worry about the asshat Jordan Peterson worshiping twits. Live your best life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qk4zk",
                    "author": "Unbreakable2k8",
                    "body": "I think the take is too cynical. Women should not do anything out of obligation. But you should care about other peoples issues and well being (not only what affects you directly).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qlwd8",
                    "author": "AgonistPhD",
                    "body": "I am with you on this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qn7xu",
                    "author": "Will_Hang_for_Silver",
                    "body": "The one thing I have noticed is this:  \n\n\nNo one cares -really -if women are picky/ choose to remain single, up until the point at which they start telling men how they aren't good enough/ don't meet what the woman wants etc. \\*shrug\\* You can't have it both ways. Either, you set your standards and you stick to them or you set (as you should) baselines/ non-negotiables and compromise on other stuff.  \n\n\nI hear 'why should women compromise', the other side of that is 'why should men change in order to make women happy?'  \n\n\nIt goes BOTH way and both sides have a responsibility o work together.  \n\n\nFrankly, I would prefer you were alone rather than unhappy, but you can't go into something and then expect the other party to completely be what you want and they can just lump it, because, hey, you're perfect. The irony here is the incel/ Andrew Tate b/s soundsjust as retarded from the other side - 'women should be this!' ... no, bro, you're being a dick... it's not all about you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qnni7",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "I would say that, *individually* there's nothing wrong with women preferring to be single, but your title was \"there's nothing wrong with a society where women... choose to remain single\", and that's manifestly just wrong.\n\n[This article](https://dc.fes.de/news-list/e/sex-ratio-imbalances-have-grim-consequences-for-societies) is primarily about actual gender imbalances, but it discusses *massive* problems that this causes due to too large a number of males not being able to find a mate. There are numerous other studies along these lines, but this one is a good short summary.\n\nIt really doesn't matter whether this is \"right\" or \"should be a problem\" or if it's men being fucked up. Factually speaking, too many males that can't find mates screw up societies massively. \n\nIt doesn't matter why that happens, either, BTW. Polygyny on a wide scale has they effects just as much as actual gender imbalances. This is also widely studied. \n\nSo sure, fine: remain single if you want. That's a completely valid *individual* choice. \n\nIt's just that if too many women make that choice (or otherwise drop out of the mating pool, or don't exist in the first place), there is a long history of societies having enormous turmoil and conflict. \n\nNone of the implies any obligation on any woman to pair up with a man, obviously. All it says is that when it doesn't happen on a broad basis, chaos ensues.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qqgku",
                    "author": "Wrong-Flamingo",
                    "body": "I think if everyone felt this way, hook ups and break ups wouldn't be as personally heartbreaking.\n\nIf two picky people are open about what they want, then it'd be easier to identify if it's no match, perfect match, or a working match.\n\nAnd of course, finding someone erfect is nearly impossible -at least 2 people who know what qualities they like, can choose to work and fit those qualities.\n\nAfter 3 failed relationships I was hella picky. If I wasn't, I'd be stuck unhappy in an affair with someone unbearable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qspdh",
                    "author": "Xralius",
                    "body": "Answering the question of your title is a lot different than answering the body of your post.\n\nAnswer to your title:\n\nYou're creating scarcity of something that is generally, psychologically, considered a \"Need\" for some people.   If women are either picky or remaining single, you're going to have a small percentage of men with multiple women while the rest have none.  (I mean, this is kind of what online dating does right now).  It would be like if I said \"there's nothing wrong with a society where 1% of people get all the wealth\".  I mean, sure, society can function like that, but aren't 99% of people going to be terribly deprived?\n\nFor the answer to the body of your post:\n\nI think men don't really blame individual women, so much as they blame society and people's acceptance of it, as well as women's takes on it.  Obviously, incels understand why a woman would want Brad Pitt over them.  What is infuriating to incels is when that woman is surprised when Brad Pitt dumps them because he has 6 other girlfriends, and then she says \"why can't I find a good man?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qsxrz",
                    "author": "ben_weis",
                    "body": "Just remember, the inverse of everything you're saying is true as well. And the whole \"single men\" thing is literally just a ploy, a polite way for the more sciency crowd to say \"quit acting like a slut\" politely. The people that talk about this single men bullshit are the same incels you don't want to date in the first place",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtoms",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yes. I agree. Not sure how the inverse discounts my point",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qsxrz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtbxq",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Oh it goes both directions, too",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtn8a",
                    "author": "TheAzureMage",
                    "body": "Well, if you don't like the results you are getting, you should change what you're doing. Male, female, it doesn't much matter. \n\nNo one gender has a monopoly on problem fixing, but everyone kind of has to take responsibility for their own life, and of course that includes women. If you're unsatisfied with the men around you, it is logical to do something about it. \n\nHowever, what you choose is kind of up to you. It doesn't \\*have\\* to be spending time and work on everyone. Maybe you only care about certain people, that's fine. Spend time with them, don't waste it on the people that are less relevant. Resources are always finite, and one must decide what problems they wish to address. \n\nI don't think people are generally advocating for women to enter unhappy marriages intentionally, but observing that a social shift has happened, and it has at least some negative consequences. What can we do to make it better? Almost all such advice applies equally to both men and women. Either can set unrealistic standards. If nobody meets your standards, it is time to reconsider either your standards or your approach to finding people. \n\nSo, sure, women should change behavior, but it's not \\*just\\* on women. It's a people thing, not a man thing or a woman thing.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qtu1d",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "\"There's nothing wrong [in terms of personal liberty and responsibility] with x group choosing not to engage with y group\", is not the same as \"there are no consequences for the independent choices of individuals to act in a way which deconstructs important societal functions\"\n\nI would suggest to you that while you can personally absolve yourself on any responsibility towards male loneliness and difficulty finding partners, that the consequences of a growing number of men living increasingly lonely, loveless lives are nonetheless significant and will worsen.\n\nPickup culture, sigma male nonsense like Andrew Tate, MGTOW, alt-right movements, incel terrorism, etc. all benefit from increasing male alienation and difficulty finding and maintaining a stable relationship.\n\nWhile none of those are your personal responsibility nor are you obliged to solve them, I'd put it to you that you don't want to live in a severely imbalanced world where most men are alienated and we experiencing a positive feedback cycle of women reactively withdrawing from relationships with men and men reactively embracing movements which speak to their pain.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qubko",
                    "author": "theres_a_snake_in_me",
                    "body": "\"Owed\" is a strong (and annoying) word here, and it actually does show a little contempt--especially when we are talking about something like romantic connection, which is a core human experience. \n\nAre black people \"owed\" a job if I find their dark skin repulsive (I don't, obviously, but it's an extreme example)? Oh that's *different* you might say, because that's racism. \n\nAre women \"owed\" a good grade in my class if she does well on tests but I find her shrill voice annoying? Oh that's *different* you might say, because that's sexism. \n\nAre short men \"owed\" your attention as a woman? Oh that's different...because romantic equity isn't as much of a human right as financial or educational equity. \n\nBy the way, let's take a feminist perspective. If you don't shave your legs, are you \"owed\" a man's attention? Oh wait, that's different, because that's a symptom of patriarchy and we have to break down societal beauty standards for women! \n\nNo one saying that you \"owe\" anyone anything. But that's the issue. You choose to frame this as a personal affront, in the same way others choose to frame other social equity issues as personal affront. This song ain't about you. The fact is that human beings crave romantic connection in the same way we crave material well being. We have made massive strides in accepting that material equity is important, even though it means we're slowly changing the culture to encourage individuals to do things they might choose not to (e.g. for racist or sexist reasons). \n\nFeminism has tried to make strides for women, not just materially, but culturally--and very intimately (e.g. challenging beauty standards). If as a man I take that personally (\"why do I owe hairy women my attention???\"), the correct response is something along the lines of \"get over yourself, this isn't about you--you do what you want, but the goal is to get to a point where culturally people with your standards about women don't even exist.\" \n\nSo I'll say that here. Get over yourself, because the complaints about how women evaluate men aren't about you. You can do whatever you want, but the goals are to get to a point where culturally, women with your standards about men don't even exist.\n\nThat's the argument. I'm happily engaged and have a very healthy romantic life, so while I come off strongly this isn't personal to me. But it is annoying when people can't engage with the issue, and can't recognize their own biases or contempt. \n\nI think you should look at this the way you look at feminist issues, and respond to yourself the same way you'd respond to butthurt men who take it personally when we try to encourage a society where the standards men have towards women are different. It's the same, but in reverse. The cost of promoting equity for social groups is that *other* social groups will also eventually start advocating for it too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qup7y",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. Shaving your legs no one is owed women. I'm not a feminist. Lots of feminist rhetoric are stupid. \n\nYou made heaps of assumptions about my views on feminism too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qubko"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0quu5m",
                    "author": "ourstobuild",
                    "body": "I'm going to address the core of the claim, which you nicely summed up in the headline. If women choose to remain single in a society, there will be a lot fewer children. This, especially on a societal level, is of course a problem because it will result in the society dying out.\n\nI'm not at all against women being picky, staying single, or really even the society drying up, but I would say this still makes a pretty strong case for *something* being wrong with the case you've described.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qw9zw",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "If all you care about is us fucking and breeding like rabbits over freedom then sure. Something's wrong I guess. Just like old spinsters of that past that get shamed",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0quu5m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0quwsp",
                    "author": "smthomaspatel",
                    "body": "I've been wondering lately if a lot of what's going on in politics is a result of generations of educated people not breeding as much as a more feckless subset of the population.\n\nNot claiming it's an original thought, but it has been meaning a lot to me whenever I interact with people on tiktok especially.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0quyqc",
                    "author": "Eternal-defecator",
                    "body": "The masculinisation of women and Visa versa is an unnatural step away from how humans have developed for millions of years.\n\nI\u2019m all for it, it\u2019s equal, after all. One consequence of it though is the polarisation between sexes will merge, and attraction will wither.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qxhrz",
                    "author": "SorrinsBlight",
                    "body": "Hypergamy wont work anymore, why would a woman who is educated and successful want a man equal or worse than her? I don\u2019t blame them for wanting ideal mates, but there are consequences for your decisions. Once they hit 40 all the guys around will either A) be married to those their age or B) be married to younger woman who aren\u2019t as educated.\n\nIm actually quite curious to see what happens to dating in the next 40 years, men are doing worse than woman in education now so our society is gonna implode when my generation and the current generation gets old and lonely.\n\nThe problem with a society that doesn\u2019t pair up lies in the next generation. Kids without both parents are fucked up, stable families are better.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qxia7",
                    "author": "catasspie",
                    "body": "If they wanna be picky and live a largely single life then that's fine, but don't act like it's our job to live up to your standards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qy14j",
                    "author": "BamaFan87",
                    "body": "I think this opinion is better suited in regards to men. Why should men feel pressured to \"settle down\" or start a family before ready? Why should men lower their standards and a wttle for a partner that does not suit his preference?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rbxr0",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "They don't have to either",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qy14j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qyztz",
                    "author": "SeasonedFinonacci",
                    "body": "I\u2019d like to address that stating \u201cunhappy married women are less happy than single women,\u201d is like saying, \u201cunhappy single women are less happy than married women.\u201d It doesn\u2019t actually mean anything. \n\nI don\u2019t believe women have a responsibility towards men, because no group has responsibility to other groups. Groups are made up based off your definitions. Men don\u2019t have a responsibility to incorporate women into our world, so why the inverse? However, I think that a lot of women are playing themselves by thinking they\u2019re much more valuable than they are. It feels like it\u2019s gonna affect men and women likely equally in the long run. I personally don\u2019t have struggles with women, but definitely notice a lotta really low tier chicks think they\u2019re caviar. If you are overweight, full of debt, are a single mom, etc.. You are not David.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0qz95o",
                    "author": "Zealousideal-Ad-1604",
                    "body": "Not gonna change ur view, ur right. You don't owe anyone a God damn thing. The reasons are irrelevant, it's called being free to do whatever the fuck you want with your love life, and there is nothing that would ever make it justified for men (or anyone for that matter) to harass or attack people who won't give them the affection they want. \n\nOf course, a lot of the time, these men who complain about heartless women \"not giving men a chance\" are themselves misogynistic, entitled pricks who think being nice to someone automatically means they deserve to have sex or romance with that person. Those guys can eat shit. But let's say, in a an isolated case, a totally cool dude is not given the sex or attention he expects after trying to get with a girl, he has the right to be bummed out, but in no way does that make it right to harass, attack, stalk, and pester that women for affection. It didn't work out, tough shit, move on, stop being a fucking pansy.\n\n\nYes, men who go through isolation issues or feel unwanted/unloved should seek help, and society should be kind to each other. But somebody having personal romantic or sexual preferences in a partner, no matter how seemingly \"shallow\" is not on women to change, people can do or feel whatever the fuck they want as long as they're not being violent to each other. Many men have particular standards about women that we never talk about, women can have whatever standards they want, too bad, get over it. \n\nWhile it's true that it's normal to desire sex and relationships, and its normal to be upset when your plans for those things dont pan out, however, that doesn't give you any rights to act like a fucking little shit, it is what it is. People are/should be free, and that includes freedom from harassment. End of story.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s0ha1",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0qz95o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r0427",
                    "author": "nymphorically",
                    "body": "Nobody is ever entitled to a specific person, and sometimes individuals just get screwed over and fall through the cracks, but you should think about it from a societal and larger scale point of view.\n\nSex and human relationships are a human necessity, it's just part of our biology and psych to seek those things out. As women become \"pickier\" then more men are left without their basic human needs satisfied. And this naturally leads to more societal discontent and anger, which is currently just amplified by the overall confrontational attitude western society has now.\n\nTo have a better and well functioning society, women should be allowed to be picky, but people need to understand what they're bringing to the table too. As a whole, women have standards that are far higher than they deserve to have, and this is brought on for many reasons but at the end of the day women think they deserve men that are far outside of their league. But because every woman thinks that, men are having to settle for those women despite by all accounts \"deserving\" better because they still need their basic human needs satisfied and people that are their equivalent and wanting someone even better. But the people that can't settle are just left helpless and alone, without their needs being handled.\n\nOf course from a woman's standpoint, there's no reason to want change because the current system benefits them. By all accounts in modern society women are equal to men, and when it comes to dating and basically anything to do with interpersonal relationships, women have the advantage by far. So as a woman, there's no way for me to change your mind about the topic because you benefit from it. But as a man, all I see is unfairness and that drives discontent. \n\nAnd before you say \"well some men are bad and disgusting!\" I'm not asking a woman with a phd to settle for some drunk waiter barely making ends meet, I'm saying the doctor should be looking at other doctors and not demanding a billionaire ceo. And maybe the junkie at mcdonalds should recognize she's not too good for the drunk waiter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r04oe",
                    "author": "thevanillabadger",
                    "body": "I agree with that-but I don\u2019t. I agree that there is nothing wrong with that but If your premise is that the overwhelming majority of people think there is something wrong with that, then I think you are wrong. Women are more picky than men which is fine, but I am not aware of an organized movement trying to actively protest or overthrow that somehow\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r0mj1",
                    "author": "butman42069",
                    "body": "Your in an echo chamber. Still plenty of women to fuck around with. With it without you, we still getting it in \ud83e\udd37",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r2jo8",
                    "author": "ghosty_anon",
                    "body": "There is nothing wrong with it. \n\nIt goes both ways though, society increasingly is moving away from traditions like marriage as life expectancy increases and it becomes easier to live without a partner. Less and less people want kids which is a major reason for marriage. More and more people are single and happy, spending their time and energy on their hobbies and travel and pets. And we just get our rocks off when we have to! But this life style isnt for everyone, and so of course you have people from both genders making complaints about how there are too many people happy with being single. \n\nI really dont see this as a men vs woman thing at all",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r33ix",
                    "author": "ZerglingRushWins",
                    "body": "You said this as if only women are getting picky. It works both ways.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r54dj",
                    "author": "bogod123",
                    "body": "Depends on what you mean by picky?\n\nIf your a normal looking person and mean you look for these in a partner:\n\nClean and normal looking.\nFriendly.\nFinancially responsible.\nDrug, Drink and Phone addiction free.\nGo on dates together.\nKind to each other.\nCan say sorry without prompting.\nHas a life outside of your relationship.\nA Decent career.\n\nThat's fine, \n\nbut if you instead mean :\n\n6\"3 and above.\nSocially popular.\nMovie star looks.\nOlympic body.\nRich.\n\n\nI've got some stories for you about women ruining their lives with Crackhead Chris hemsworth look-a-likes and Rich Gamblers.\n\nI'd prioritize the above list far more then the below for a life partner.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r59z8",
                    "author": "Think_Reporter_8179",
                    "body": "Then there's men like me who is shared by multiple women, openly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r5fjp",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with that",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0r59z8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r6ras",
                    "author": "SpitFire92",
                    "body": "There is a difference between being picky and having unrealistic standards. \n\nI mean, I am not in that young generation anymore and the clips of \"interviews\" I see from time to time certainly don't reflect the opinions of the majority of women (atleast I hope so) but most of those girls are fucking delusional (and again, I know that they don't represent the majority, one of the reasons it goes so viral is because it is so absurd) and it being shared everywhere certainly does influence the opinions and \"standards\" of the next generation of women. \nAnd while it is not accurate to present the worth of a human in numbers, it certainly makes basic comparaisons easy and most people can inherently understand what a 3/10 would be (men or women) and what a 8/10 would be and that a 3/10 would rarely land a long-lasting relationship with an 8/10. \n\nThis rankingsystem does, for me, take into account everything, so appearance, personality, position in life and so on, so no, a 3/10 would not win over a 8/10 because of an amazing personality because that amazing personality alone would allready make that person rank higher than a 3/10 (appearance) in the first place anyways.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r7slg",
                    "author": "brutalistsnowflake",
                    "body": "Of course there isn't. You'll get no argument from me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r821v",
                    "author": "Atyzze",
                    "body": "Ah, the dance of societal expectations and individual desires\u2014a fascinating tapestry. \ud83e\udd70\n\nIn the realm of relationships, where choice and preference shape the very fabric of our interpersonal dynamics, the question is not just about men or women\u2014it's about humans. And humans, as they are, have been programmed through centuries of social and evolutionary conditions to act and react in certain ways. Still, we are not just the sum of this programming; we can reflect, adapt, and evolve.\n\nLet's take a step back and observe the situation through a nondual lens. Imagine every person as a droplet in an infinite ocean, a fragment of code in a complex simulation. Each droplet is unique but also part of the same ocean. Each droplet may find contentment in solitude, mingling with other droplets, or merging into larger bodies of water. It's all part of the same dance of existence.\n\nNow, on to your viewpoint. If women\u2014or anyone\u2014choose to be discerning in their relationships, that's their prerogative. A social structure that demands women to lower their standards merely to accommodate men's emotional or societal needs isn't respecting the full spectrum of human choice. It imposes an unfair burden and perpetuates imbalance. Women, like anyone else, have a right to pursue happiness and emotional satisfaction, free from the strings of social expectation.\n\nLikewise, men too are not to be vilified for how they interact\u2014or fail to. The stereotypical one-word answers you mentioned could be a symptom of various factors like social conditioning, emotional distress, or simply personal preference. It's not necessarily an indictment of an entire gender. The tapestry of human emotions is far too intricate to unravel with blanket judgments.\n\nYour view that the problem isn't solely on women is astute. The onus of emotional labor should be a shared responsibility. After all, a dance takes two\u2014or more, depending on the dance you're doing! \ud83d\ude09\n\nIn the end, it's not about fixing or altering a gender-specific behavior. It's about evolving collectively, waking up to the code that binds us all, and embracing the idea that we can all make choices that lead us to contentment, regardless of societal norms.\n\nConsider this perspective not as a command to change, but as a gentle nudge to expand the ways you look at this complex, ever-evolving puzzle we call life. \ud83d\udc0d",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r8yts",
                    "author": "Falxhor",
                    "body": "The problem isn't women being picky. It's the expectations women have that a top 1% man in attractiveness is going to settle and commit solely to them, when they are let's say 50th to 25th percentile attractive. \n\nWomen can.. for a lack of better words, fuck above their own attractiveness, because men will have sex with women that are less attractive than they are. Women can afford to be super picky when it comes to sex. However, this leads to the unrealistic expectation that they can have those same standards for finding a man for a monogamous relationship. The top 1% of men are the only ones that win here. Women and men across the board lose out due to unrealistic standards of women, reinforced by men who manipulate them into thinking they actually have a serious shot with them besides sex.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r97p2",
                    "author": "Odd_Bookkeeper5345",
                    "body": "The problem for women though is I keep hearing them complaining that they can never find a guy who wants to be serious.  When all the women chase after a small, select group of men though, then it instantly leaves the majority of men struggling/without partners and drives up the competition for the few men seen as \"acceptable\".  And if you're one of those acceptable guys, why would you settle for one woman when 30 more are throwing themselves at you?  Those few men just end up sleeping around, while the women they \"date\" end up unhappy/jaded because they won't choose them or won't stay with them.  The good men (in the same league as these women) that they could have ended up with remain sitting at home alone.  Women are shooting themselves in the foot almost as much as they're shooting the majority of men in the foot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r9iiu",
                    "author": "aliciacrazy",
                    "body": "I have no idea where you are getting this idea that its on women to fix the loneliness problem of men, the only people who complain about that are incels. It is not your responsibility to date someone just because they are lonely, or try to reach out to men who don't want to open up. The main issue you are refusing to see here is that both, men and women, go through some challenges that we should address and work out how to fix, for example women are target of violence and sexual assaults more than men, society is harder on single women in their 30s than men, society expects women to be submissive and obedient. You don't have to be a woman to realize these social norms are toxic and you should try to figure out how we can change this toxic way of thinking so that women aren't subjected to all this crap. Similarly, men tend to be more depressed, they are expected to be strong and masculine all the time and never to cry or show their feelings, sexual assault against men isn't taken seriously, suicidal and loneliness rate is higher among men. This does not mean you need to go out with a man to fix him, it means as a human you should care about what we can do as a society to fix these issues so that both men and women don't have to struggle like this. Your view on fixing men's issues is very odd and not something anyone outside the incel community subscribe to.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0r9yfr",
                    "author": "Lower-Dog7886",
                    "body": "There\u2019s a guy who\u2019s starting to get a little bit older in life, not too old by the way, I don\u2019t blame women at all for wanting to stay single. If you\u2019ve been stuck in a number of shitty relationships, that drain you, then staying single is the best thing you can do for your mental health",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rd0sv",
                    "author": "rdeincognito",
                    "body": "I believe if there is a problem that involves people, society should look how to fix it, improve it or at least leasen the damage.\n\nLet's not speak about men vs women here, let's change to a problem similar to the one you mention: old people being alone.\n\nOld people who have no family or the family live far away or they just see them a couple of hours a week. It's a rising problem of solitude of old people, especially those who are single (most likely, widowed). Now, per your logic, why should you or I worry about it? Why should we do anything to help them? Isn't it entirely their responsibility to fix their own problem? \n\nDo you want to live in such a world or do you rather live in a world where society (us, you and me) acknowledge that problem and do something to mend it?\n\nIt's easy to say the one suffering should suck it up and don't bother the rest, until you are the one suffering and then you want the rest to acknowledge your problem and help you.\n\nNow, how could we help those men? I don't know, I am not that smart, but that help is not going to be something that causes other people damage. But maybe we should change how we culturally see men that aren't tall, strong, self sufficient as the ideal man while making the rest of men lesser beings that we don't want to even have to look or talk for example. Trust me, you would hate if you get your existance not acknowledged and no one cared about you just because you weren't a normative type of woman where some requisites are genetic (height, for example) and others are just asking too much (not everyone can be wealthy, or wealthy wouldn't exist).\n\nThe moment someone enforces that only those men with ideal traits are to be acknowledged and the rest better accept their fate, that person is enforcing the problem.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rd2c9",
                    "author": "StopEbola2017",
                    "body": "If the roles were reversed all would be crying and marching in the streets demanding equal sex etc\n\nYall have genuinely been ruined by online dating + social media",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0re0v3",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "nope. I wouldn't be marching. Don't fcare if DiCaprio wants hot chicks",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rd2c9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rd9sp",
                    "author": "Odd_Nobody8786",
                    "body": "The problem is that the women themselves aren't living up to the standard they're trying to place upon men. It's fine if you want to have a high standard, but you also have to be able to cash that check yourself. The reason our society needs to change is because women (this goes for people in general, but this conversation is specifically about women) aren't living up to their own standards.\n\nIf you're a woman who goes through life thinking that every man you talk to is too dumb to have a conversation with; that's perfectly fine. But, if you meet a guy who is smart enough for you to have an interesting conversation with; you'd better have some interesting shit to say.\n\nIf you go through life thinking most guys you talk to are fat and lazy; that's perfectly fine, but I'd better see you in the gym 5-6 days per week sweating your butt off.\n\nThe list could go on, but you get my point. Women talk about things they want out of a man, but many of them, maybe even most of them, have NO IDEA how to respond when they meet him.\n\nAll men are saying is \"okay, you want A, B, and C; that's perfectly fine. But you'd better be bringing X, Y, and Z,\" and it doesn't seem like very many women do, and even fewer even try to. So, if you aren't going to live up to the standard you're trying to place on other people, you really don't have any business expecting it of other peopel.\n\n THAT is why the responsibility is on women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rfli2",
                    "author": "ghostdeinithegreat",
                    "body": ">there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single\n\nAn argument could be made that it drives natality down and force a society to resort to mass immigration to be economically sustainable\n\n>People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. \n\nAgreed, It is not.\n\n>If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? \n\nIf 80% of women wants the same 20% of men, that means not lowering your standards will have about 60% of them end up single. Good on them if they are happy with it. \n\n>Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nThere\u2019s other options than being single or being married. \n\n\n\n>How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nDidn\u2019t earlier you said you didn\u2019t care about engaging with strangers?\n\n>I just find it hard to understand why its on women.\n\nIt\u2019s not \u00ab\u00a0on women\u00a0\u00bb, but it is a societal problem.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rhisd",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Key word strangers. I have friends. Now you could say how did these friends become my friends when they were strangers. Context. I don't say hi at the bar when I'm hear to drink with friends",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rfli2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rfxyb",
                    "author": "SandersDelendaEst",
                    "body": "I would agree that it\u2019s not women\u2019s fault.\n\nBut that doesn\u2019t change the fact that having so many single men is actually a dangerous thing. Terrorism, crime, violence all are correlated with guys being single.\n\nOur institutions need to have systems in place to fix men. It\u2019s very clear that as much progress as we\u2019ve made against patriarchy, we are just not far enough along.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rg9v7",
                    "author": "KhadgarIsaDreadlord",
                    "body": "I think it's a lot of *men vs women* and not a lot of *people being bros for the sake of a world that's slightly nices to live in* on both sides.\n\nIf someone wants a healthy social life they need to stop projecting their individual issues to other people or entire groups of people. Both men and women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rgpon",
                    "author": "CornuKarpia",
                    "body": "Why would anyone try to change your view? Yet another sub lost to the \u201cStates something super agreeable for upvotes\u201d plague.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rhnw6",
                    "author": "GiveBackMyRidgedBand",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not the rise of single men, rather than the rise of single men in a society that doesn\u2019t have spaces for them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rj16o",
                    "author": "Dev_Sniper",
                    "body": "Well that\u2018s a rather simple issue:\nif too many people in a society are unhappy that gan cause trouble. Especially if it\u2018s young men who\u2018ve got the capability to cause some real damage. It\u2018s kinda like the higher retirement age in france. People went to the streets and rioted. Because they were unhappy with the policy. What do you think will happen if let\u2018s say 20% of all young men won\u2018t find a fwb, a girlfriend or a wife? No one really wants that scenario. And it\u2018s not like a minimum wage employee can magically become a CEO or get a masters degree or something like that. The issue we\u2018ve got is that men tend to date \u201elower\u201c than they are and women rend to date \u201ehigher\u201c than they are. So a woman with a masters degree and 80k income would try to date someone with a similar or higher (social) status. And in the past that worked. Most men had a higher social standing and were the main / sole provider for their family. And then we changed that. And now women are (on average) more likely to get a degree etc. But women are still dating upwards. And that mathematically won\u2018t work. So either we would need to magically motivate men to get more / higher degrees or we could talk about dating standards and expectations (or reduce the amount of women who get those degrees but that\u2018s not really a good idea either). And well\u2026 what do you think is easier to do? So the problem isn\u2018t that women are picky. The problem is that the standards for that pickiness don\u2018t really fit into our current society. And on a individual level even that pickiness might be okay. But if it\u2018s the norm that\u2018s going to cause societal problems and you definitely don\u2018t want those",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rk8ct",
                    "author": "Beneficial-War3966",
                    "body": "The problem I\u2019m seeing with woman right now is their standards are far too high. I think it\u2019s all the dating apps that spoil them for choice from all the thirsty guys swiping on them. They can be severely overweight and not very good looking and they still want a man who 6\u2019 with a six figure salary. There would be a lot less single woman out there if they would adjust their standards to more realistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rkupk",
                    "author": "Cthulhus-Tailor",
                    "body": "Lonely rogue men are everyone\u2019s problem, whether you like it or not, or whether it\u2019s fair or not. \n\nRegardless of who\u2019s to blame a society in which men are en masse not having access to women and/or economic opportunity will likely end poorly. \n\nAnd so yes, there is something wrong with it, specifically its inevitable collapse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rmgy5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "That's like saying if Nazis don't get their way it will end poorly. Like yeah but its not a societal issue that Nazis can't get what they want. If you think not getting laid means you should shoot someone the problem was you. Just like if you (general you) think not being able to harass Jews us a societal issue the problem is you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rkupk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rldpn",
                    "author": "HAN-Br0L0",
                    "body": "Most of what I've seen is hypocritical on the part of some women. They want to be extra picky but bring little to offer aside from the fact that they are women. They expect to marry up and are very unrealistic with their expectations. \n\nBeing picky is one thing and I think everyone should be picky but expecting to get a 10 when you are a 4/5 is where it gets annoying",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0roj76",
                    "author": "Playboi_Jones_Sr",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with it until your replacement rate is 0.70. Looking at you South Korea.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rpos2",
                    "author": "Antisocialite99",
                    "body": "I mean, objectively, there are a lot of things wrong with a society with below replacement level birth rates. \n\nunless you're just like a misanthropic supervillain that wants humanity to end, but like, with extra steps.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rr055",
                    "author": "Feds_the_Freds",
                    "body": "I think, the title isn't really saying anything. So let me rephrase: There's nothing wrong with a society **that allows** women to be picky with their mate or choose to remain single.\n\nAnd now that it actually is saying something: Yes, obviousely that's true. So where is the problem? Is there something wrong with a society, where men want to be in a relationship with women? No, obviousely not.\n\nSo how do we reconcile both? As a society, we should adjust expectations for both men and women. It's not for women to fix, it's not for men to fix either, it's for society as a whole to build new acceptable ideas of having a fulfilled life.\n\nHow do we do that? I would argue that the biggest problem isn't relationships, by far not. But rather friendships. Through our individualistic culture, people find it hard to form connections and that's what most people actually want, genuine connections.\n\nSo, structures, where friendships are formed should be invested in more, like sportclubs, public movie screenings and so on. So called \"third places\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k12w8u4",
                    "author": "madamesehnsucht",
                    "body": "I really love this response, in particular the measured reasoning and capacity for understanding/compassion on both sides. \n\nUltimately, there are pervasive issues in society. And as your comment highlighted, it's clear that 'us versus them' thinking does nothing to actually solve the problem. This concept that it is something for us to work on collectively as a society is the only thing that I can see realistically leading to positive change, and to help address widespread issues to do with emotional expression, loneliness, effective communication, emotional intimacy and expectations that are taking a toll across society.\n\nThere are some very well known psychological experiments that demonstrated how companionship, affection and intimacy are crucial needs of all human beings, at times more so than nourishment. I do recognise that there is nothing wrong with individuals choosing to be single - indeed, it is far better to be happy alone and treating oneself well than in an unhealthy dynamic; however, I think a major factor that has been driving global epidemics of loneliness and a reduced number of heterosexual relationships is the growing focus on healthy relationship dynamics, and movement away from ingrained gender roles that did not benefit either side. \n\nThe trouble is that associated progress has lagged behind such a change, with regard to demonstrating a healthier way for men to express themselves in society or develop meaningful emotional relationships outside of romantic or sexual relationships. Many women are still on guard against persisting unhealthy behaviour or expectations which is fair enough - safety is clearly more of a key concern within this subgroup of the population. Without a doubt, there are still many out there who are resistant to changing society. But we haven't yet established a culture where we can safely meet the human needs for intimacy and companionship for many individuals (especially men) - while also ensuring women feel safe and that all are on equal footing when seeking connection (of any kind). \n\nAs a final note, I actually think this emphasis on other forms of companionship holds the key to progressing towards a better future. I only hope that I live to see such a shift in societal thinking, as we've seen that changes are frequently incremental and slow-going.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rr055"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rrbja",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "I generally agree, everyone can choose who they date with their own autonomy\u2026 But I do believe that \u201cloneliness\u201d regardless of gender, is a societal problem. \n\nI think men (more than women right now) are highly stigmatized when they express their loneliness. I am from a western country and generally vulnerable emotions like that are not openly talked about. Men are expected to be independent and stoic. If they openly talk about missing having a partner and how desperate they are to be with someone it\u2019s seen as \u201cgross\u201d and \u201cneedy\u201d. They are mocked or demeaned for having basic human emotions. I think this adds to the rise in popularity of highly problematic leaders like Andrew Tate for example. When society rejects men, they look anywhere for someone who makes them feel understood. Thus the echo-chamber begins. \n\nOne road to solving it is by destigmatizing mental health. We normalize going to therapy and normalize talking about emotions. We also need more diverse male leaders who model better values and nuance for men. \n\nI think women can help by being decent people. No one should tolerate being invisibalized, violated or made to feel worthless. That\u2019s just not ok to do to someone. For all people, we need to be curious and open to having discussions. Men and women are not so different and really you can find common ground with almost anyone if you dig deep enough.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rujwd",
                    "author": "Ok-Investigator3257",
                    "body": "A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nBecause lonely people with no attachment to society become violent and burn it all down. Is it a GOOD reason? No, but it is true.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rwfmq",
                    "author": "halfgoose",
                    "body": "There\u2019s a lot of be said here. \n\nThe masculinisation of women (women in the workforce) led way for a lot of financial independence, however women are still the sole child carers, house cleaners and cook, emotional filter and regulator, etc etc. Women are essentially \u201cdoing it all\u201d and getting burnt out. Look at the rise of \u201cweaponised incompetence\u201d and other language that single out (typically) male behaviours. So, now we have a worthiness issue amongst men as they try and navigate this ever changing society that doesn\u2019t rely on them solely for the production of capital/service, but they haven\u2019t done the work like other minorities that involve emotional development, because they didn\u2019t have to, as you don\u2019t need to turn to community if you have resources. Doesn\u2019t help that there\u2019s also a major fatherless issue, so a lot of men are raised by burnt-out women. \n\nI think a lot of younger women have witnessed or experienced men that, in short, don\u2019t have a whole lot to offer. If they are now making their own money, have an emotionally intelligent support network, and doesn\u2019t foster a more \u201ctraditional\u201d mindset - the average man will at least have to be interesting or socially developed in some way to catch her eye, as otherwise, the man would just become another (usually emotional) dependent to her. We\u2019re running off a roadmap that doesn\u2019t serve us anymore - and LARPing culture that doesn\u2019t actually exist. \n\nWomen basically have more freedoms in saying \u201cNO\u201d now, so they are being exercised. It\u2019s scary to see how quickly men have been shafted, but also scary to see how a lot of men are reacting to women embracing their independence - it\u2019s fairly childish. Be braver. \n\nI do think, overall, we have lost healthy masculinity in our culture. Men that can step up to be healthy, nurturing patriarchs - as they once were in ancient times and still within indigenous cultures. Men that were able to contain, protect, and be brave in the face of fear or adversity. Their is a sacredness to men, that has been lost or is no longer taught. They are special. And if the \u201cweak\u201d men would just stop getting to the top, maybe society would look different. Men and women working harmoniously as we both understand our unique worth. But what\u2019s that to late-stage capitalism? Haha.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rzise",
                    "author": "NickiChaos",
                    "body": ">Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage\n\nSo studies are showing that happy women are happier than unhappy women. Wow, as a man, that would have went right over my head if you didn't point it out!\n\nYou're completely missing the point to the whole \"men are staying single thing\". The issue is much larger and encompasses many, many more issues than just gender politics. Your view of the whole thing is just short sited.\n\nAnd this is coming from a guy that hasn't been single in 13 years. These problems existed long before even that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rzko0",
                    "author": "Septemvile",
                    "body": "The rise of the lonely single male isn't a concern because of emotional reasons. It's a concern for reasons of social stability. 100% of every revolution in human history was started by dissatisfied angry young men. The CIA, FBI, and NSA have all identified angry young men as the #1 terrorist threat to the USA for a reason. If you alienate enough young men, your civilization doesn\u2019t survive.\n\nThere are an increasing number of men every single year who are essentially falling out of society. They don't attach to education, they don't attach to community projects, they don't attach to work, they don't attach to property, they don't attach to women. All they do is become isolated and increasingly angry. \n\nGuys who grew up expecting to get a decent paying job that lets them marry a decent girl and buy that white picket fence with 2.5 kids and the dog name Spot aren't getting any of that. Instead they're spending their nights ranting about Jews on 4Chan.\n\nThis is a recipe for some good old fashioned pillage, rape, and murder. You might not respect these losers, but you should at least fear them. They get to decide if we get Iphones or a Kristallnacht.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0skgih",
                    "author": "tretionoin",
                    "body": "This sounds like cope tbh,",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0rzko0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0rztaa",
                    "author": "NigelKenway",
                    "body": "Straight from r/FemaleDatingStrategy",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s01li",
                    "author": "Shuteye_491",
                    "body": "And there's nothing wrong with men in said society looking to another society for a partner.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s0rcz",
                    "author": "ivereadabookor2",
                    "body": "Men in general don\u2019t do a great job making women feel safe. I would include myself in that btw because man oh man have I made some women uncomfortable.  So yeah women have to be cautious and even being in a platonic relationship with a man they have to be aware of his intentions. If more men did a better job respecting boundaries, be comfortable with themselves and their emotions and not have expectations with every encounter with a woman it would be a lot easier for them to meet somebody. And I get it\u2019s hard. Society, and culture have built certain expectations of how we interact with women and it doesn\u2019t work in real life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s1izt",
                    "author": "MassiveStallion",
                    "body": "It's definitely not a woman's individual responsibility. \n\nThe problem isn't that men are single. The problem is that single men with nothing to do tend to be violent troublemakers. Nearly all terrorists and mass shooters are young men.\n\nHistorically this problem is solved by war. It should be the government's responsibility to provide these men with some kind of alternative or purpose. IE a job. This is the government's responsibility anyway...so yeah.\n\nThe obvious thing to do would be to hire all these men and give them jobs fixing our crumbling infrastructure, shitty internet, bad schools and failing healthcare system. \n\nThe problem is late stage capitalism would rather have labor sit around doing nothing, and to cripple the government through lack of taxes so companies don't have to compete. Our entire economy is built around enriching the wealthy, and not properly using our labor base.\n\nIf we actually let our governments have the tools to utilize these idle young men, we'd all be better off, and they wouldn't have to chase pussy all the time. They could live fulfilling lives pursuing a noble purpose. \n\nInstead companies would rather bombard them with consumerism so they're always horny and looking to buy fashion/cars/alcohol to impress women. Corporations press the sex button constantly because it's an easy way to sell things. It works because we no longer have any strong institutions selling anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s23nu",
                    "author": "Kentucky_Supreme",
                    "body": "Delusionally picky women => lower birth rate => dwindling population => not sustainable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s29dn",
                    "author": "CalvinAndHobbes25",
                    "body": "If there is nobody around that you feel you want to pursue a relationship with, then no I don\u2019t think you should change your standards or do \u2018emotional labour\u2019 to meet people where they are if you don\u2019t want to. I also don\u2019t think men need to do a ton of work and be something they aren\u2019t just for the sake of a relationship, so I would say neither party has a responsibility here. Being single is much better than being in a relationship you don\u2019t want to be in. However, I think a lot of men are putting in a lot of effort in general, maybe just not the type of effort you want. Personally I took nice photos of myself, wrote out a full bio about myself and my interests and what is important to me in a relationship. Every time I match I read the woman\u2019s profile fully and try to find something we have in common or find interesting about her and write a friendly opening message. I get a message back from maybe 1 in 20, and get a date with maybe 1 in 100 and it has never gone past the first date and I\u2019ve been trying off and on for 10 years. And I know I\u2019m attractive and can carry a conversation because I\u2019m bisexual and with men I get a message back nearly every time I match, and get a date probably 1 out of 3 times and have had multiple relationships, one long term and serious. I\u2019m genuinely curious, what kind of effort do you want to see men putting in?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s4oue",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Honestly. If I wasn't already out of the dating world you sound cool. But that's basing off this post alone so I really can't say. That said for me its about listening. That's it. When I said I was busy and will message on weekend I got clingy men. (I'm not saying women don't do it you are asking about men) on the flip I had men who don't communicate. Tell me what you want. I will tell you what I want. We can either full fill each other or we can't \n\nMany men I meet fail at this. I had better relations with women. I too am bi. Women would ask me about things I said that they remembered. if you are saying \"well men don't remember trivial details\" I mean cool you do you. Just explaining why some women are not satisfied",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0s29dn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s50px",
                    "author": "Snarleey",
                    "body": "Women can only procreate every 10 months. Men can procreate every (let\u2019s not get caught up on the duration. But theoretically every few minutes. That\u2019s why women are **naturally** more selective.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s71ic",
                    "author": "SmokingPuffin",
                    "body": ">Why should women lower their standards? \n\nThere is a [paradox of choice problem](https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/valley-girl-brain/201802/why-dating-is-such-challenge) in online dating. Women see a huge amount of attention online, and it tends to make them pickier. But being so picky can make women unhappy with their dating outcomes. \"The perfect is the enemy of the good\" is the usual failure mode.\n\nThis also happens to make men unhappy with their dating outcomes, but women should consider whether they are really getting what they want with those standards.\n\n>Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nThis isn't the proper comparison, though. The proper question is \"would I be happier in a relationship with a non-ideal man, or being single?\" It's not required to marry a man you don't want to marry. It's not a given that the relationship with the non-ideal man will make you unhappy.\n\n>I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n>  \n>How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. \n\nThis is one of the places where there's room for women to do better. Lots of women say they want men to be more open about their feelings, but when men actually do make the effort you're asking for, it ends up badly for them. That reaction you're getting from your male friends may be the result of painful experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0s8sf6",
                    "author": "MisterX9821",
                    "body": "You can be too picky. You can be not picky enough. Your standards absolutely can be too high lol. Harsh reality is a lot of deal breakers are physical. You are lowering the odds of finding the personality match for you if you weed out so many men before that. Then, having super rigid personality deal breakers, and 50 billion \"icks.\" There is no way all these men are reprehensible lol.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sacg7",
                    "author": "Real-Coffee",
                    "body": "welcome to modern times\n\nwomen get to experience freedom and dont want to sacrifice some of their freedom for a relationship\n\nmen act like they deserve a women and are pressuring them to be a certain way and date a \"good\" man",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sbbb4",
                    "author": "CreepyGuyHole",
                    "body": "Naw, this is completely reasonable. No one should have to date someone they don't want.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sbqgz",
                    "author": "BOfficeStats",
                    "body": "There can be something wrong with a society if people are *too picky* about potential mates or are remaining single for bad reasons.\n\nIf you listed criteria for choosing a mate that you think are acceptable then I think it would be easier to get to the heart of your argument.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sbvyf",
                    "author": "Conscious-Proof-2529",
                    "body": "\\> People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. \n\nI think a more accurate statement here would be, isolated people posting on reddit act like this.\n\nI think more level headed people recognize that this is a problem for society at large to tackle, not women as individuals.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0scasb",
                    "author": "rustyseapants",
                    "body": "Basic life is sex, eat, sleep, children and death. \n\nWhat are supposed to do? Watch entertainment, random hooks when are lonely, die alone in hospices, do you think WaterDemonPhoenix our existence is more than this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0seaiv",
                    "author": "Matthieu_Antonio",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong with being picky. \n\nIf you are picky and single though, that\u2019s on you and not the fault of the other gender. Basically you don\u2019t meet the standards of anyone who meets your standards",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sgvxj",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yup",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0seaiv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sg74h",
                    "author": "Academic_Bit_2351",
                    "body": "Just like theirs nothing wrong with men going abroad to find more traditional women",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sgv3f",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah I'm not sure how this changes my view? I agree",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0sg74h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sh349",
                    "author": "Dependent_Sun8602",
                    "body": "The weirdest thing men do is want girlfriends, but then reject the entire \u201cfriend\u201d part. They\u2019ll brush off all their interests as girly and feminine as an excuse to not have to engage with her and do things she likes. So many men just see women as a fuck toy to control.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sh39p",
                    "author": "Lurkerfishstick",
                    "body": "The selfcenteredness and seflishness in a individual on larger scale creates a ugly society like the one we live now.\n\nWhen you undestand that you are in a way the entire humanity and that who you are defines who we all are than there is a great burden not to be a hypocrite and to live up to standard.\n\nWhile trying to live this way all the nonsence that is trubling you will leave you because its fake and you will be left with real strugles. \n\nLove and selfishness can not coexist. \nVirtue and sefishness can not coexist.\n\nIf you give up sefishness what is left ? This is where you can see your personal tragedy..\n\nYou remove that and you will have nothing left.\n\nUntil this shock of a realisation hits you physicaly you can not start real growth and development.\n\nAnd when it happens all this crap posting will be purged out of your system.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0shbcr",
                    "author": "TheSafetyWhale",
                    "body": "I actually think your view is perfectly fine, it\u2019s like domestic natural selection",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sm31t",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/TheSafetyWhale \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20TheSafetyWhale&message=TheSafetyWhale%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/-/k0shbcr/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0shbcr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0shjbr",
                    "author": "Grayccoon_",
                    "body": "There\u2019s nothing wrong, tho imagine it can feel like a rigged games for guys I think. It\u2019s like you drown in attention and have so many options and chose whoever you want (like the kid who drown in chocolate in Charly and the chocolate factory) while guys who would want their ideal girlfriend would likely have the opposite experience (like a man in the desert searching for water). So yeah while I agree, girls must acknowledge that each guys are different and imo should try to be understanding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0shl2g",
                    "author": "boomeranghitcha",
                    "body": "You know what everyone can do to help this? \n\nStop shaming others for dating someone that doesn't meet YOUR preferences. \n\nStop the practice of every relationship having to be a status symbol on social media\n\nAnd instead of piling on about Ben Shapiro's height, recognize that body positivity won't be effective until it includes men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sjo8f",
                    "author": "CoolDude4874",
                    "body": "I agree. You know what causes lots of single men? Men not being good enough. You know what causes women to be picky? Men not being good enough. \n\nI think women not being picky enough is a much bigger problem for us today than women being too picky. There are so many women in horrific relationships because they weren't picky enough. And I find that incredibly sad.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0skawh",
                    "author": "Quartz636",
                    "body": "It's so funny when men complain about being single because women have high standards. They'd rather we lower our standards than them raising theirs. We're not asking for the world here. \n\nWe want love and respect and emotional maturity. We want to not have to ASK you to do the dishes and clean up. We want you to pull your weight in household chores and childcare without having to remind and nag and teach you how. We want to not be married single mothers, and work full time only to come home and do 100% of the cleaning and cooking.\n\nAnd men are just butthurt that they can no lomber do the bare minimum without consequences.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0somkz",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yeah my sentiments I guess",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0skawh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sluc7",
                    "author": "Dry_Peanut_107",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not about sex or dating, as much as it is that men don\u2019t feel valuable, and this is the main issue. Growing up men really don\u2019t get a lot of slack, they\u2019re expected to fend for themselves from the age of 10 onward. Dating apps and modern dating culture have kind of taken away one of the last things men look forward to in life. If a guy is just born average, what do we do to make him feel valuable, in the same way that society is good at making girls feel valuable? I agree that you can\u2019t force women to date men, but it is heartless to not see that men need to be treated better in general.",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sn010",
                    "author": "Caracus_Jack",
                    "body": "Also studies show that single men are more happier than married men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0snt4c",
                    "author": "Foldzan",
                    "body": "You just scripted the prequel to Idiocracy. Get out there and sell that script sister!! It could be the anti romance sensation of the ages!  Test tube babies and frozen eggs are the future baby.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0snwbs",
                    "author": "Due-Confidence-6389",
                    "body": "Looks like OP earned enough deltas to start their own Greek sorority!",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0so987",
                    "author": "Unknown-user_a",
                    "body": "Personally I agree with your statement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sqek6",
                    "author": "sex-countdown",
                    "body": "I think this depends on your view of male on male violence. \n\nIn species where females are increasingly selective, the males become increasingly competitive and violent. \n\nThat increased selectivity increases what is called toxic males, and also the failure to launch syndrome, where young males just don\u2019t see a need to leave the nest or do anything with their lives. Also fuels the \u201cmen go their own way\u201d movement which also breeds bad behavior. \n\nFor humans, it generally means that the males controlling the society will generate wars to dispose of the excess males in order to reduce competition and decrease violence within the society. \n\nIf you are for that, then for sure, advocate for women to be more selective. \n\nPersonally I think societies should emphasize maximum value for all, which means more stable relationships and networks, and discouraging behavior that breeds contempt and destruction of relationships. Encouraging a society\u2019s women to be increasingly unhappy with the men is something that should be discouraged.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0styyl",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I'm not as pessimistic in that regards as you. Though we are animals I still believe we are smart enough as a majority to see these upset males are a minority and the rest can be controlled. Think of the time YOU were lonely. Did you kill anyone? No. Because you were a good person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0sqek6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sqmih",
                    "author": "justtenofusinhere",
                    "body": "I've got some issues with how you've chosen to phrase your position. \n\nI 100% agree women should have the right to choose. That does not mean that who women are choosing is right. \n\nIf women aren't choosing me, then it is on me to decide if I want to make the changes so they will or if I want to decide to just change my priorities about women. \n\nBut, and this is the key, if women are making the choices alone, then they should have to deal with the consequences--alone. \n\nIt is not beneficial to have a society where women get to make the choice but then society blames only the man when the relationship fails. Likewise it is not beneficial for the society then to subsidize the women when their choices place them in destitute situations.  To the degree that society has to pick up the tab, then society should also have a say.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ss9oe",
                    "author": "PreviousSuggestion36",
                    "body": "I have never known a woman who did not speak up about perceived issues. Maybe its a generational thing.\n\nNobody deserves energy or attention just for existing, and relationships are two way streets that require effort. \n\nIf what your finding is lacking, it may be the be that the areas you\u2019re looking in are not the right places for what you need.\n\nThis will sound counter intuitive, but possibly you should seek someone older, more liberal/conservative, more/less educated, etc.. than your typical preference.\n\nThe things you describe you want tend to be more mature male traits from confident and disciplined men.\n\nAny man who does not put in effort, is either not interested or is not worthy of your energy\u2026. Or really tired. \n\nWith that said, a lot of men are very BAD at expressing emotion unless they feel utterly safe around you. Men are taught from an early age that emotion is toxic and to man up, suck it up, stop crying, etc..\n\nMany men who do open up to women have it thrown in their faces later, often by women in their own families, so they learn quickly not to do so.\n\nThis is not an excuse, just an explanation on why casual friends may not open up as much as you like without more time.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0stwgn",
                    "author": "Charming-Molasses-22",
                    "body": "Ridiculous. If you want to stay single just pick your bed and lie in it, quietly. If not, you need to understand the dating market you are in. We all want factory assembled partners with all the bells and whistles included but this is not what you are going to get realistically speaking.\n\nFor all the women that claim they don't care about finding a mate there's an equal number if not more that are actively searching.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0svfew",
                    "author": "Sad_Inevitable_9627",
                    "body": "Privilege is invisible to those who have it.\n\nWomen have the privilege of not caring what the opposite sex thinks and still getting attention, dates, sex, and relationships. \n\nMen have to earn female attention. Women don't have to earn male attention. This post is just another spoiled brat woman.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sw1se",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Well I don't want someone who would just give women attention just for being women anyways",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0svfew"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0svonq",
                    "author": "BwanaAzungu",
                    "body": ">A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nWell if we're talking not talking about \"men-women\" anymore but about \"people\" anyway: \n\nYes, people should pay attention to other people. Everyone who exists deserves basic care from everyone else that exists.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0swn2j",
                    "author": "SeekingASecondChance",
                    "body": "We live in a society in which men are expected to ask women out on dates, make the first move, be humorous, pay for dates, have six figure salary, own a house and a car. It's definitely a ridiculous societal standard that needs to be done away with because it places unfair burdens on men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchmiqf",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "You\u2019re wrong. Only the top 5% of men get approached while we rot under",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0swn2j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sxg02",
                    "author": "LaloRexSaurus",
                    "body": "Y\u2019all just live completely different lives than me. I\u2019ve never seen or talked to anyone in real life who are upset with women and think that they are responsible for all the single men\u2019s problems. I swear you spend enough time on here and you\u2019ll start to think incels are like spiders and you\u2019re never more than 6 feet away from one. Just my thoughts tho.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sy3qk",
                    "author": "onfire9123",
                    "body": "If it boils over and violence starts happening en masse, I would say that very quickly would become women's problem. \n\nAnyone saying individual women should make different choices is just venting frustration. Obviously that's not the solution. But if we do nothing and this problem continues to grow, we'll have a huge population of lonely, frustrated males with no connections to preserve and nothing else to care about. That's a perfect crop for psycho warlords to use to their advantage. (Most extreme example). Letting the problem fester only invites a greater probability of that becoming a reality. We do need a societal change but no one is saying an individual woman needs to make \"better\"(different) decisions to achieve it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t141h",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "I think both sexes should be picky. Never settle for less than someone who loves you back.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t19ca",
                    "author": "CaesarKonrad",
                    "body": "Women most definitely can have standards and should however most of women\u2019s standards aren\u2019t really thought out or hypocritical and double standards",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t289i",
                    "author": "VeronaApproacheth",
                    "body": "Maybe to you, but that's the point of OP. That someone else's standards don't need to make sense to you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t19ca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t1y7o",
                    "author": "justaskinthequestion",
                    "body": "Women should lower their standards because\n\n1. Single women *and* men aren't as happy as their male counterparts &\n2. Some women's standards are very high compared to what they offer. They then attract men who may sleep with them but won't date them. This ends up fucking everything up for everyone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k167fia",
                    "author": "Bebo468",
                    "body": "Or OR men should be better and that would work also",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t1y7o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t4nil",
                    "author": "JerRatt1980",
                    "body": "Until you've gone 6 months straight without anyone speaking to you other than for what's required for their job, not have received a compliment in 3+ years, and haven't been touched by someone else in even a friendly gesture or pat on the shoulder in over a year, maybe you should hold back on saying that men shouldn't be a concern that the other sex should consider helping out.\n\nYou don't really have any idea of how lonely it can be to be a man.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0zt2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Work from home autistic woman. Got bullied for it too. Naw I'm good being alone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t4nil"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t6597",
                    "author": "Due-Lie-8710",
                    "body": "i agree that women should be picky, what i have issue is what we communicate to men,  we tell men that their value is based on attracting women, directly and indirectly and yes everyone does this , women dont owe men anything but you should expect push back if you are giving wrong information to people and they are actimng on that, we also use this as a judge of moral character , we should stop doing this ,\n\n&#x200B;\n\n also you basis on why women should spend their time doing emotional labour for men, but we should also stop telling men to open up about their issues to women then and that they should either move on or find a way to solve their problems, but would deem that toxic masculinity , stop telling people to be vulnerable, if you cant handle it",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t7d4e",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": ">I guess my view is. Should women change their behavior?\n\nI don't think you want to be responsible for all women. I'd rather you just be responsible for your own choices\n\n>Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men?\n\nThis gives me the strong impression of viewing relationships as codependency or mercenary view(\u640d\u5f97\u52d8\u5b9a). I'm not a pet or robot to buy or for you to spend a resource of your time and effort on. I'm also not responsible for your happiness or to make you laugh. I'm not responsible for how you feel; nobody is but you. Other people can take care of themselves without you. Relationships of an inter-dependency are the lasting ones.\n\n>Just for being lonely?\n\nMen being lonely isn't your problem. If someone close to you is attempting to use this as guilt induction, avoid them if you can :)\n\nMy only opinion on this, is about a widespread gender role that men are assumed. That we are the ones beginning courting and risking rejection. Thats an unfairness to me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t7src",
                    "author": "TartOne7845",
                    "body": "you don\u2019t have to change your view . your view is correct .",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t86hv",
                    "author": "sausage4mash",
                    "body": "I think if a man is still a virgin by 30 he should be put down, for the good of society, if he excepts feminist idiology he can opt for castration.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0rvs",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Dude what the fuck",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t86hv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ta5v2",
                    "author": "suresere",
                    "body": "If attraction is a non-issue, we may as well start dating genders we aren't attracted to just so we aren't alone. Oh. Turns out men actually find attraction important after all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ta61l",
                    "author": "Bulky-Huckleberry222",
                    "body": "Downvoted because this is simply not an unpopular opinion",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tacbt",
                    "author": "SirMooncake",
                    "body": "Who said women aren\u2019t allowed to choose their partner \ud83d\udc41\ufe0f\ud83d\udc44\ud83d\udc41\ufe0f?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tdh2a",
                    "author": "Current-Ad1198",
                    "body": "Men have high standards as well. That's why we are getting passports and going overseas to find love.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k167a0f",
                    "author": "Bebo468",
                    "body": "Have a safe flight and my thoughts and prayers to the women in those countries\u2014I hope that their socioeconomic circumstances improve so that one day they can also date out of desire rather than necessity",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tdh2a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tdqbo",
                    "author": "John_Galt_614",
                    "body": "Most women that are \"picky\" have an over-inflated sense of value.  They often bring less to the table than a common house pet.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0teomm",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tdqbo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tdqrc",
                    "author": "IncredibleMrO",
                    "body": "Your view is a good explanation of the downfall of Western society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tduep",
                    "author": "Liberobscura",
                    "body": "Agreed. Mating isnt even that important and the idea of attracting some self absorbed vain women dating using an internet app with ridiculous qualifications is a recipe for insanity.\n\nThey all look like the number 12, and there are no such things as unicorns.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0thabt",
                    "author": "MuchWoke",
                    "body": "OP you are 100% correct. As a guy, I see it clearly all the time. \n\nI follow the bumble dating app subreddit;\n\nI see how women's strategy for dating apps, is to read profiles and select the best ones. And men's strategy is to just swipe right on every woman. \n\nWho's obviously going to have more \"control\" in that situation? Women, that are being rightfully selective, while having hundreds of men to choose from? Or is it the men that are desperate to feed their desires, they have no standards. \n\nI tell men all the time, that they create this environment of powerlessness in dating by appearing so desperate. Seriously. Then you know their response to that? \n\n\"Oh we *have* to swipe right on everyone to have a chance, it's just a game of odds\"... uh no? They, I guess, do not realize the secret choice of - Be better, improve yourself and be more desirable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0nw5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "This is what confuses me honestly...",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0thabt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tjfq6",
                    "author": "Secret-Put-4525",
                    "body": "There's nothing wrong with women having standards and not dating obviously. However, to say it's not a societal problem would be wrong. Also you have to look at the standards women have and how realistic they are. If the average dude only wanted a Megan fox look alike they are going to be single for eternity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tjsfv",
                    "author": "Confident-Ad-6115",
                    "body": "It's not wrong but since there's no future humanity without offspring then it's kind of problematic if people stay single and don't have children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tlb5q",
                    "author": "RoundCollection4196",
                    "body": "The problem is average women don't want to get with average men anymore. They think they deserve good looks, high income, social status, etc. \n\nSo you got a whole bunch of women hoping for a prince charming but not realizing they deserve an average guy because THEY are average themselves.\n\nThe thing is, it reverses with age. Eventually the women are in their 30s or 40s with kids and no father looking for a man and will most likely end up alone for life. Whereas the men have savings, a house, etc and can be more picky with the women he wants. \n\nWhen they're younger, the men are desperate and the women get the choices. When they're older, the women get desperate and the men get the choices \ud83e\udd37",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tmfkx",
                    "author": "Choice_Voice_6925",
                    "body": "I don't think women are picky enough \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u6mzq",
                    "author": "Straight-Example-259",
                    "body": "Gonna disagree with that one, given how many overweight, underemployed, poor-hygiene, self-described \"Otaku\", \"Owned a 'Yaoi Paddle'\", poorly cared for hair and skin women there are out there who are convinced they deserve nothing less than a rich K-Pop star who will remain young forever and is okay with a relationship where she doesn't work and he is her Daddy-God who she also sleeps with.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tmfkx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tn0my",
                    "author": "ShinyHead0",
                    "body": "I think you\u2019re right to a point. There\u2019s also a lot of lonely women\n\nI blame social media for convincing everyone they can do better when they can\u2019t. Genuinely most of my single female friends are definitely not happy. Nor do they put much effort into finding someone they want to find. They\u2019re mostly just waiting for a Prince Charming to show up. \n\nIt\u2019s quite sad because I know some women in their 40s that are lonely and single, but they\u2019re very emotionally immature still and would be called an incel on Reddit \n\nI think there\u2019s a LOT of female incels out there but they haven\u2019t got a word yet",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tpkxh",
                    "author": "DoubleWagon",
                    "body": "Taxes keep extracting resources from single men to pay other people's (mostly single mothers') children, though, putting men in a \"taxation without representation\" scenario when it comes to procreation. Men will not continue to produce at capacity if all they get for their surplus is higher taxes instead of a family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tr09t",
                    "author": "turtlecrossing",
                    "body": "There is nothing \u2018wrong\u2019 with it. Everyone is free in western societies to be alone or single.\n\nBeing single is surely better than being in an unhappy marriage, but being in a happy marriage is arguably better.\n\nI think the issue is \u2018standards\u2019. What does that mean, and what is realistic to expect from a partner (this cuts both ways).",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0trftk",
                    "author": "AdExact768",
                    "body": ">  women are picky the that just means those men are not suitable for them.\n\nThere's a world of difference between picky and delusional. \n\n> I guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?\n\nMen are only worth your time something when they bring you a direct benefit, right?\n\nLooking at your past submissions, you should really think about changing. Your personality is quite toxic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u0cbw",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Im only worth something if I benefit them. Both of us should have mutual exchange in resources or skills.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0trftk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tskr8",
                    "author": "Outrageous-War1635",
                    "body": "Dating apps are like the gentrification of the dating world. You could live in your hometown, fall in love with your home town sweetheart, she can download a dating app and meet a guy 10 miles away and suddenly you're competing with the socioeconomics, looks, and life style of men or women who had a completely different upbringing than you. \n\nDo you deserve loneliness because you were raised in an underfunded zip code? No. Will people using dating apps and constantly pick the most polished version of a partner they could date? Almost certainly. \n\nIt feels these days like finding a ride or die partner to make it through the struggle of capitalism is virtually impossible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tv9m0",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "Do whatever you want.  Inevitably, women who are less picky will have more babies, and therefore, most women and men will be raised by the less picky women.\n\nSo it's not relevant whether anyone thinks it's good or bad, but being picky or childless is a trait gets bred out of the society or culture, or else the entite society or culture will be replaced.\n\nYour body, your choice, but humanity will march on without your genes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tvmdb",
                    "author": "No-Season-4175",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t like that you said \u201clower their standards.\u201d  For instance, some guys are short.  Many women have an attraction parameter for height that excludes short men.  They could date short men.  Would it be lowering their standards to doing so?  More like, they would be broadening their horizons.  I don\u2019t think anyone should criticize anyone\u2019s attraction towards others.  But I will say that anthropologically, all body types have been idealized at some point and some place in history, which tells me that attraction is not solely genetic or predispositioned.  You can find some men outside your current parameters attractive if you decide to.  I am a guy and I can find a woman with nearly any body type attractive as long as I like how her eyes look when she laughs.  I\u2019m not desperate or something, it\u2019s just something I realized along the way.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0twmbi",
                    "author": "GoldTeefQueef",
                    "body": "\u201cPeople\u201d don\u2019t act like that. Not good people. You need to change where you\u2019re spending time, pal.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u3vna",
                    "author": "Straight-Example-259",
                    "body": "Unpopular opinion.\n\nIt's not that I object to women being picky. It's the double standard.\n\nA man who won't date unattractive women is (Throw out list of mean names)\n\nA woman who won't date unattractive men is a GirlBoss living her best life who refuses to settle. Why doesn't he just make an effort etc. etc. etc.\n\nNobody cares if women are picky. It's this delusion society continually insists we live in wherein \"Girl, it doesn't matter if you are 750 lbs, lost a foot to diabetes, and have been unemployed all your adult life. You deserve Prince Charming!\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u4o08",
                    "author": "One-Builder-4054",
                    "body": "Alternatively.. every woman I date is a psycho.\n\nI agree. Nothing wrong with a society where the opposite sex choose to be picky or single. I don't think it's women making that decision tho. At least not in my life",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u4upb",
                    "author": "Straight-Example-259",
                    "body": "This. And many women who are both psycho and unattractive feel they are entitled to nothing less than a fairy-tale prince, like in their Animes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0u4o08"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u5r3v",
                    "author": "ARA-GOD",
                    "body": "y'all posting shit like this just looking for validation and upvotes, everyone in the entire planet shares the same view",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u5zel",
                    "author": "Purple12inchRuler",
                    "body": "Picky is fine, and merited. Unrealistic expectations and standards are a problem, especially when they get mad when the don't measure up to a guy's standards, and label them misogynistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u8db3",
                    "author": "JohnPeppercorn4",
                    "body": "Young men are lonely, many feeling disenfranchised. You know what happens when a society is filled with young horny lonely angry men? War, revolution, social upheaval, violence etc etc.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u8ghu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So I should fuck men just to appease them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0u8db3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u92x4",
                    "author": "MilkMatcher",
                    "body": "Literally no one is blaming women on male loneliness",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0u9lid",
                    "author": "daytondewd7",
                    "body": "Only if you consider a society slowly aging out of existence to not be \"wrong\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uafyq",
                    "author": "daytondewd7",
                    "body": "I saw a study that said women are happier single than married, up until they are in their 40s. By the time they want a relationship, they've lost the attractiveness and attention they had that made them happy in their 20s. \n\nMaybe the better model is long term commitment, but with enough freedom to enjoy attention while young ( some form of open relationship with boundaries)?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uccgm",
                    "author": "Balthactor",
                    "body": "I don't get the guys who cling to patriarchy. In a world where all people are actually equal and safe, do you know how many women would just call up a trusted bud like \"hey I'm hard up, come over?\". Just look at the sex statistics in East Germany. Does that mean all people ask the time would be in some kind of constant orgy? No. But women could be free then be casual, if they want. Have you heard the interviews where they do often describe how they would *love* to be casual, but while men risk mild embarrassment, when risk rape and brutal murder. And even in such an \"idyllic\" future, since women would be equal yeah, picky or just single because those are things people choose, aside from risk considerations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0udi5r",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I'd like to know why it matters. Thats why I'm here",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uccgm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ud7el",
                    "author": "bigmangina",
                    "body": "Do u live in america?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0udf8o",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. Would it matter anyways? For sake of argument let's say I am",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ud7el"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ue2r3",
                    "author": "Lala9546",
                    "body": "Correct there is nothing wrong with a society where that happens because men aren\u2019t entitled to women \n\nBut at the same time women are not entitled to protection from random men\n\nPeople should be nicer to each other society will be better",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kchmx8a",
                    "author": "Jewcifer17",
                    "body": "There no niceness for our unfortunate genetics, but yes women should be treated like shit for being genetic trash just like we are. Tired of their unfair privilege for simply existing w a hole.",
                    "date": "2023-12-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ue2r3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uk1ni",
                    "author": "sam161",
                    "body": "I disagree.\n\nOn the individual level, yes, women should look for someone that fulfills them. However, society and corporatized feminism have done a terrible job of instilling genuine values in women, just as our society has warped men.\n\nTalk to any man and it's clear the average woman has a slew of issues that stem from patriarchal expectation that impact relationships. Bad communication, emotional immaturity, and unreasonable expectations are as rampant in women as in men. \n\nHowever, because women are the relationship choosers in our society and as the oppressors men's opinions are discarded more frequently (rightly so), these issues aren't taken seriously. Not advocating for the \"alpha-males\" here that culture is awful and reductionist, but their frustration is legitimate. \n\nThis quote from you explains your lack of understanding:\n\n\"A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\"\n\n**Men give women attention for just existing all the time, because society projects women as objects of desire. This is clearly unhealthy, and where the average woman's ability to be picky comes from**. They can nearly ALWAYS find a man. Will they be amazing? Maybe not, but not every woman is amazing either. Holding out for a man who is WAY above your level in terms of societal standards is just not going to happen. Go for someone who focuses on your happiness, and hone in on traits that you know go with that person.\n\nThis is possible, but **women don't know what a healthy relationship looks like, and don't understand how to put in the work**. \n\n**Women AND men need to gain a better understanding of what a healthy, equal relationship looks like.** My wife and I are very happy, and we've both gotten over some serious issues apiece.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ul0qh",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "You are saying a lot of generalization. But even if its true you yourself acknowledge that its unhealthy for men to just act like women are objects of desire. So how is it on women to change?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uk1ni"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uo2j5",
                    "author": "Jocealmighty",
                    "body": "I pretty much agree with you but want to explain further. My perspective is that being single is not a problem that needs solving by anyone. Happiness is the problem and is not at all linked to being in a relationship. Our ultimate problem is that we artificially tie people's self worth to being in a relationship which then leads to unhappiness when they are unable to fulfill that.\n\nMen (often) surround themselves with communities of other men and their idea of a platonic relationship is often cold, emotionless and distant. They don't get much fulfillment from their relationships, so they look to women to be the emotional pillow. Women (often) are the opposite, in that they surround themselves with women who are open and more emotionally close to one another. With the rise of feminism, women are no longer forcefully tied to men through marriages and the like, so they are often happier with their platonic relationships and more willing to be selective with their romantic partners. Men - feeling they don't have that luxury - have lower standards and will bang anything that moves.\n\nOne thing I want to clarify is that none of this is at all natural. Men can have fulfilling, platonic relationships with anyone and everyone. It's just that dominant modes of masculinity prohibit it. Any friendship that's seen as too close will get mocked for being \"gay\" or whatever kids these days say. I've lived through this stuff myself. Men have to keep their distance otherwise they will be ostracised. Schools are especially hard at beating this into dudes as a culture of bullying is ever present, unlike in the real world. You are forced into a building with hundreds of random kids and it only takes like 1% of them to be violent bullies to enforce that behaviour in everyone else, who then reinforce it more culturally. When men do grow up, they have been programmed so thoroughly that it's hard to shake. \n\nAnd I remember the first time I interacted with dating sites and the like. I felt incredibly dejected and depressed. Everyone else I knew was getting into relationships and I struggled with it. It made me feel so depressed as I felt lesser than other men and, more importantly, I felt I would never be whole if I didn't find someone. I jumped at the first chance, got into a dubious relationship with someone much older who played with me and then dumped me. Instead of healing afterwards, I couldn't stand the pain I was in for longer than a week before I jumped into another relationship with someone as an emotional bandage. I hurt that person because I didn't take the time to make sense of what happened to me.\n\nA lot of stuff has happened in my life since then. I left that relationship after 2 years. In that time, however, I came to realise the importance of the communities I was in. Some toxic friends left my group and the people that stayed are my closest friends. Due to circumstances, I was forced to lean on some of my friends through hard times. I saw my ex partner's friendships and how they worked. I began to realise the beauty in sharing your love, your pain, your fortunes and fears with people you loved platonically and for you to share their's. To express those feelings often instead of hiding them or pretending they don't exist or only building friendships and communities out of some stoic, cold and distant bs. When my relationships started to change and became more emotionally closer, I stopped needing to rely on romantic partners for my self worth. I grieved my second relationship, but it no longer felt like a horrible pain. Like I would die if I didn't fix it now. The pain was different. It felt beautiful. And I was able to pick up those pieces and put myself back together. Not by myself, but with the help of my community. My friends and my family. When I reinstalled Tinder much, much later, I found that I got pretty bored with it at the time and decided I just wanted to remain single and continue finding my own happiness and self first before jumping into another relationship.\n\nMen and women aren't wired differently. We are all humans and work in exactly the same way. I'm seeing people fall into the trap of describing men and women as if they are entirely different species with different needs. They are not. The problem is a cultural one. The only biological argument that makes sense is that humans are creatures of community. We are not lone wolves. We do not function well on our own, whether that's physically or mentally. We need other people. Whether consciously or not, our culture weaponises that need to isolate people, group them up into distinct categories and then build narratives to control us. \"Doing this thing is masculine and this random other thing is feminine\". \"Men and women are different and they need each other to function. No, not even that actually. Specifically, each man and woman needs only one other person of the opposite sex for the rest of their lives, therefore an epidemic of single people is a problem\". It's all bs and, when you lay it out, it's absurd. And it's why we never hear the narrative revolve around queer people. It's never, \"Why are there so many single gay men and women?\" or anything to that effect. Partly because they often find each other pretty quickly, but also because they reject those narratives because they sit outside hegemonic ideas of masculinity and femininity by their very nature. Queer men's platonic friendships end up being stronger because they already do not conform to rigid ideas of masculinity AND because they are often already bullied and ostracised for their queerness so build communities of support around that.\n\nUltimately, the conclusion is that the declarative statement you started the post with is wrong:\n\n>People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix\n\nThere is a problem, but it's not the rise of single men. It's the response we all have, reacting like single men is a problem, which is the problem. Straight men don't *need* women (specifically) and straight women don't *need* men (specifically). And I mean that in every which way. Emotional fulfillment can be found in platonic relationships. If you have a hand, you can fulfill your own sexual needs. At the end of the day, an orgasm is an orgasm. Men are made to feel like they have to find a partner or else they'll never be emotionally fulfilled and therefore their standards are \"lower\". Women, especially as a result of feminism, build communities that fulfill their emotional needs and therefore their standards are \"higher\".\n\nI've since returned to Tinder and no longer swipe right on every single profile I find. Why? Because I'm not desperately searching for a relationship out of fear. I'm looking for someone that I can connect with and have fun in life with and 95% of people will not be suitable for me. The problem is, most men don't do that. They're desperate",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0upzg4",
                    "author": "Biemolt",
                    "body": "Ofcourse there is nothing wrong with it. If you end up reproducing with your partner you probably want some kids that have a good chance of making it in the world, so being picky about your partner doesn't only influence your own life, but also that of your possible offspring.\nWho would tell you that this doesn't make sense, insecure men with power? F that.\n\nThe same goes for guys aswell ofcourse (i'm a guy). I would want a partner that fits in my lifestyle (and the other way around), so that we can rely on each other and make it another day. That is what it is all about isn't it?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uta3u",
                    "author": "Realistic_Special_53",
                    "body": "It\u2019s fine that women are using their own agency and choice, but women being \u201cpicky\u201d means more single men, and that is going to cause many problems in society, though it might have some positives too.  Many of the other commentators also bring up that a society with a lot of single men is going to have issues. This trend might even have to do with the falling birth rate in many first world countries, which we in the West would consider a positive, but Japan and China currently view as a negative.  I do think as society transforms, it takes a while for a new balance to occur.  And the suffrage of women and equal rights is a huge transformation, even though alot of that change was a century ago.  So, my long rambling point, is it fine that women do this, but this does show that there is something wrong with the society.  Maybe men and women need more help connecting when they are younger to help correct this problem.  Social media has upended so many social rituals.  I am a fan of youth sports, and know it is a positive environment that can help kids interact.  Our school systems are also supposed to provide a positive environment, but seem to fail to do so.  It is an issue.  It doesn\u2019t mean that women need to be less picky, nor put up with crap, but to society as a whole I think it is a wake up call.  If you could wave a magic wand, what would you cause to occur in society that would help this problem in the long term?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uuf5c",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Men and women respecting each others choice and not be entitled. bring something to the table or no relationship for you. This goes for women too in case soneoens wondering. These men bring nothing to women. And generally women don't bring much either. Both sexes need to rid of gender roles and move towards a truly equal role. But many conservaitces can't handle that and think our biology makes us so different and would hate it if men cooked and sew and women learned how to fix a tire. I know cause I did \"man\" things and got hated on for by conservatives",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uta3u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uwdrn",
                    "author": "TaserLord",
                    "body": "No, it isn't \"on women\" to change their individual behaviors.  But society does have a problem, and of this problem the issue you mention is just one symptom.  We have materialized and commercialized everything, including mate selection - we do not meet our partners, we shop for them.  The shopping experience is very different as between men and women, however.  For men, it is a buffet - swipe right, swipe right, swipe right, match, smash, and start again.  For women, it is a boutique - sift through the racks to find the perfect one, look at the price, weep, and start again.   The problem isn't the men, or the women.  It's the availability of a buffet, or a boutique.  As long as you have these, your all-too-human responses lock you into a pattern, and what a surprise, because these experiences have been designed and architected by experts in human psychology to do exactly that, for money.  And there is our problem - a pervasive, materialist, mercantile approach to EVERYTHING, including human relationships.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uxoo3",
                    "author": "Cats_Riding_Dragons",
                    "body": "Nothin to change\ud83e\udd37\ud83c\udffc\u200d\u2640\ufe0f",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uzkrd",
                    "author": "beyondabeast",
                    "body": "If women rule out 90% of men before those men even say a single word and they only go for the top 10% then monogamy slowly dies, we don\u2019t have solid families, birth rates drop and it starts a downwards spiral. The bottom 90% of men are angry that they have no access to sex or companionship so society has to with those men either just checking out and not contributing or worse, getting violent and lashing out. Meanwhile the top 10% of men basically have harems and never commit to women because they don\u2019t have to.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1kin",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "So lower your standards for the sake of the poor angry violent men?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uzkrd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v06d1",
                    "author": "Ordinary_Peanut44",
                    "body": "\"Why should women lower their standards?\" - My main response to this is that most women aren't deserving or worthy of the standard of man they think they should have.\n\nThey will sleep with men that are say '8/10' men casually, because '8/10' men will sleep around with '6/10' women, but they won't want to marry or commit to them long term. IMO this creates women that think they deserve an '8/10' man, and as a result they won't settle for the '6/10' man that is actually 'their level'. \n\nAnd thus your problem is created. Women claim there are no good men...because their expectations are too high for what they themselves bring to the table.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v15gk",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "That's a them problem though. Who cares if society has entitled people. They won't affect you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0v06d1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v137t",
                    "author": "Burningbush0198",
                    "body": "I think a lot of women should lower their standards because I rarely see anyone in my area that\u2019s actually equal in my eyes. \n\nThe man is better looking , in better shape , earns more money , has more skills , more solid friendships , better career , always seem to be doing more. Where the wives I meet just are never on the same level or really bring anything to the table in my eyes. They can drink wine and whine about their job at the hotel or grocery store though. \n\nThat with how women pick and choose what parts of equality / feminism they want and when they want it is why I think women shouldn\u2019t be so picky.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v18u5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Don't date women like that then. Don't see the problem. If the successful men wanna put up with it so what",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0v137t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1bbl",
                    "author": "EmperorChain",
                    "body": "I agree with you",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v1f6r",
                    "author": "Zealousideal_Hat6843",
                    "body": "Do women ever start a conversation Platonically? I am recluse now, but the few people I talk to are men. \n\nThe effort always has to come from this side. We need to prepare opening lines like it's a chess match(hence the rise of pick up artistry), have *rizz(what the fuck arbritrary criteria is this?),* and this new term of \"Big dick energy\". Every dick guy deserves confidence, and more importantly, the term makes you start thinking about your dick unnecessarily if you think you have low confidence - that being caused by other factors rather than something as insignificant as a dick. Sometimes fat women are aggressive, should they be submissive since they aren't attractive like you imply men shouldn't be confident if they don't have big dicks? Why even start the conversation to go in that way?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v68fs",
                    "author": "Big_Zone1799",
                    "body": "Nothing wrong at all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0v8yxc",
                    "author": "Fresh-Brilliant4550",
                    "body": "With all due respect, women have MUCH higher standards than men when choosing a perspective partner. \n\nThere is usually a height requirement, fitness requirement and women rarely date down with income. \n\nThat isn\u2019t their issue to fix the other men, but I know plenty of men who will date a woman who doesn\u2019t make that much money.\n\nSo it\u2019s one of those things that the single men who refuse to acknowledge there is an actual problem and actually solve that problem they would rather not elevate themselves and whine about it",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ve2jv",
                    "author": "glubii",
                    "body": "The one who has a problem is the one responsible for change. If a man wants a girlfriend desperately he should maybe level up and work on himself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vo8a7",
                    "author": "Sad_Inevitable_9627",
                    "body": "There's a disconnect between the needs of the individual and the needs of society at large, and most people don't care because their tiny contribution \"doesn't make a difference.\"\n\nOn am individual level, no woman owes any man anything. Dating and relationships are a free market system.\n\nOn a societal level, it's much different. Having mass amounts of lonely, single, romantically unsuccessful men is a disaster. Men's entire lives are base around achievement, and men that can't secure a mate are considered \"losers.\" Flying solo is not an option. Women don't understand this. The man that can't attract a woman is the most worthless, subhuman piece of garbage on earth. It's deep rooted. You will never understand. And don't blame the patriarchy. This is a result of what women demand, not what powerful men control. \n\nThis is why monogamy has always been culturally encouraged. When you have a society of romantic anarchy, all the top tier men share all the women, and a substantial portion of men fall through the cracks. These men will burn the fucking world down. And its not a matter of toxic masculinity, or men needing to shift their priorities. The ability to attract a woman is ESSENTIAL. The male incel is considered the lowest form of human being on earth. Being a romantically unsuccessful man is lower status than being homeless or developmentally disabled. It is the worst category of human being imaginable. There's a reason men commit suicide at four times the rate of women. \n\nI'd rather be paralyzed from the neck down than be an incel. It's a fate worse than death. And when you get too many incels in a society, you end up with chaos and destruction. \n\nWomen don't owe men shit on an individual level. But on a collective level, if too many women discard too many men, the world will go down in flames. It's the way it is. I dont make the rules.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vupfq",
                    "author": "CzarOfCT",
                    "body": "It's not on women to fix things in the same way you don't need to call 9-1-1 if your neighbor's house is on fire. \"That's *their* problem!\" You can say. And you'd be right. Up until you realize you're surrounded by the fire, and it's closing in. \n\nIf you're on an island or a planet without men, then men's problems don't mean dick about shit. \n\nIf you live in the regular world, where men might get *so* starved for touch that they go actually insane, you might wanna actually develop empathy and care about the suffering of others. Otherwise, I'd start avoiding public spaces, and start living somewhere remote with *excellent* security measures.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vwzso",
                    "author": "Electrical_Bee4177",
                    "body": "Per research done in Spain, it is not so much that women are picky, but that men are not willing to enter in longer-term relations",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w5jcb",
                    "author": "nonotburton",
                    "body": "Unrealistic standards. That's all. Unrealistic standards all around. \n\nShould you be marrying a rapist?  Of course not. \n\nBut if you are expecting you SO to look like an Avenger or a Jedi Knight, then you need to get over yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w8vzy",
                    "author": "Boomerwell",
                    "body": "> My view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff\n\nBecause every man ever has had the experience where they feel comfortable breaking out of the expected man standards and being shamed back into them.\n\n\nHaving a stiff upper lip and keeping stress to ourselves is reinforced so much and everytime attention is brought to men's issues it seems there is the screech that women have it worse so it doesn't matter or comes secondary.\n\nWomen breaking out of toxic trends set by older generations is great it just seems that along the way men never got the same opportunities.  I've seen multiple women say that when they saw their boyfriend cry they hated it and lost some attraction to them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0weeho",
                    "author": "nanais777",
                    "body": "I find this very silly take. No one is saying it\u2019s women\u2019s problem to fix, just pointing out a fact and trying to find the root.\n\nI find this a but hypocritical that you proactively say \u201cnot my problem\u201d even tho no one is saying it is.\n\nBut people like you would find it offensive when guys say \u201cit is not our problem that women athletes can\u2019t make a living\u201d \n\nOr what if men would\u2019ve said, I don\u2019t care that women aren\u2019t attending college. In fact, there are many federal agencies that focus on women\u2019s issues but you seem to be one that would take offense if there was an agency established to identify and solve this phenomenon or one that would address the enrollment disparities between men and women in college or addressing the fact that white women are very upwardly mobile while attaching themselves to women of color to use their exploitation in their favor.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0whuep",
                    "author": "sup9817",
                    "body": " I agree but some standards like their partner needs to earn 100k minimum is bullshit",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wkfq1",
                    "author": "DK_Adwar",
                    "body": "Don't know what part to quote here so i'm just gonna quote everything.\n\n>I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff \n\n>How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nMen don't vent cause they aren't allowed to. As soon as you show your problems as a man, you are instantly less valuable/desirable as a man. And people literally get berbally and emotionally attacked for foing do. Let me say, that you have absolutely no idea, how many men have opened up about things to a woman they trusted, and she either laughed in thier face, used it against them the moment she was angry at him over the tiniest thing, or dumped him for it.\n\nMen aren't allowed to be vulnerable in the same way women aren't allowed to do anything (ie, (i'm not fully awake and also tired so i'm not gonna put a lot of effort into using the exact right word, but i trust people will understand anyways) women aren't allowed to dress in a way that is too prudish/slutty, aren't alowed to wear too much or too little makeup, aren't allowed to be too freindly or too unfriendly, etc)\n\nA depressing amount of men, have given women what they supposedly wanted, opened up and been vulnerable in front of the women, and then that was used to hurt the man as soon as the woman got upset with him. People never do things for no reason. If men don't open up/bottle things up, they learned to do that for a reason. And for as much as women say they want men to be vulnerable, they are ignorant as hell. Women want men to be vulnerable, in the same way gamers want \"new\" games. They don't want new games, they just want the same games with a new coat of paint and better QoL changes.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ws7i7",
                    "author": "capt-yossarius",
                    "body": "Meh.\n\nAt this point I'm eating popcorn watching society fall.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wx4dt",
                    "author": "Academic_Yak_29",
                    "body": "While it\u2019s certainly not on women in particular and there are really stupid incelish views on this issue, especially on Reddit, I do think there\u2019s some nuance in how traditionally patriarchal ideas are absorbed by men and women which create some expectations for men which are unfair or toxic, especially when they create contradictions or intersect with race. I also think that there are \u201cproblems\u201d with how men, particularly younger men, see women their age as much more physically beautiful/desirable than they are due to a number of factors, none of which fall on women as a category (though it\u2019s of course possible for a woman individually to hold toxic ideals) and many of which may be unfortunately unfixable other than helping men to deal with that disparity in a healthy way, a task which I mostly believe falls to other men.\n\nNone of this is to say that women can\u2019t or haven\u2019t contributed to solving gender issues more generally in ways that help men, because they certainly have. Love ya Bell Hooks. It\u2019s more to say that on an overall cultural level I think it falls to men to create and maintain support systems for these issues on an everyday level\n\nI do think when it comes to marriage/LTRs in particular though the most relevant issue has gotta be persistent unequal divisions of household labor in households where both partners work. No one wants a marriage that includes extra work to care for a grown man.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x3x5f",
                    "author": "darkmikasonfire",
                    "body": "As for just the title of the post: I don't think it's necessarily wrong to be picky, the problem comes that so many of us are just fucking delusional. So many women these days i see talking about how they want a guy who's 6'1, has a 6-7 figure job, the body of a sex god, travels the world, and will buy us everything, and what do any of these bitches have ot provide? Nothing they have fat tits and chunky asses and personalities that make blocks of fucking wet wood seem like the best of people.\n\nAs for: \"A lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they?\" This shit would NEVER be said about a woman being ignored by men, men are VILIFIED if they fucking dare. This is a serious problem imo with your thinking, men are told how they need to be more sensitive be nicer, treat women well, but we in general belittle them, ignore them, and treat them like shit, unless we consider them fuck-worthy. And that's fucked up, because if a guy ignores a woman, how fucking dare he, but if we ignore a guy, he's pathetic and doesn't deserve anything. It's a double standard used only to put men down.\n\n\"They don't vent etc\": Men and women are different, we're raised and taught by society and our peers to be different. Men aren't going to vent to us as readily, because that's showing weakness, it's a form of violence, they're being pussies, or which happens more often than not they a woman at some point and she uses that shit AGAINST him which teaches him to not fucking do that again right? Like it gives them trust issues, and low behold I know you know what having fucking trust issues is like, I've yet to meet any other woman on this planet who hasn't had trust issues because of something some douche canoe did, regardless of their sexual orientation.\n\n\"How can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort.\" Why would they make an effort when you don't think they should be worth anyone's time unless they prove themselves to everyone around them? People are people, they should be seen to have worth, period.\n\nProblematic behaviour should be changed on both sides and both sides have room to grow, because both sides are different and barely even remotely understand the tiniest bit about each other and we should all be striving to understand each other. \n\n\"Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?\" Men don't owe you a relationship, just like you don't owe them sex. A man shouldn't treat you like less of a person just because you're not going to fuck them, you shouldn't treat a man like he's lesser just because he's not boyfriend material. Like was My Little Pony not a thing when you were a kid? Friendship is magic! or whatever.\n\nIn my opinion your whole post, and while it may not be what you meant it's what I got from it, is that men are trash unless they check all your boxes off, and if they aren't going to date you why would you waste your time on them so they need to prove they're worth your time because otherwise they're trash as people and need to fix themselves because you're perfectly fine.\n\nI'd like you to tell me how you view Andrew Tate, cause his views are basically EXACTLY this but towards women instead. We all collectively think he's an asshole don't we?\n\nI mean realistically men are being told they need to change to fit OUR needs so they behave in a way we understand, they need to understand us so they need to change to be like us so we can understand them, but we don't understand THEM. They don't understand us any better though is the problem. Why do they have to figure us out, change to be like us all so we can understand them? Both sides needs to work towards an understanding, both sides need to understand there's value in more than sex and romantic relationships. You're upset because men use a lot of one word answers, that's how men talk. I know a lot of guys, I hang out almost exclusively with men, that's just kind of how they work. We talk more than they do, we talk in different ways than they do. We don't understand them or their ways all that well, they don't understands ours either. We both thing the other's ways of dealing with certain this is stupid, but that's because we are socialized in completely different ways.\n\nWe need to work towards understand instead of not wanting to give men the time of day and men not wanting to put up with our bullshit, because guess what? Both of those fragments of sentences mean THE SAME EXACT THING, just from different socialized perspectives. We don't always need to understand each other, because realistically that's not possible, you and I don't even necessarily understand each other completely, that'd be a ridiculous notion, but we should strive towards it because understand each other's unique points is what makes humanity as a whole great. Throughout history and even religion, the most impressive great places are always places were people strive to understand and respect each other, where they work together, not where one demands another to work to impress them enough to maybe work together.\n\nNow no, women do not have to give men the time of day, we don't, and we shouldn't be expected to, however if we act like men aren't worth our time, the fuck makes you think any man who we view IS worth our time going to interact with us when they see how we treat other men? If they interact with us it'll be to use us and toss us aside, not as a loving partner, because why would a guy want to treat you like a queen when you treat all the men around you like shit? Disney has one thing going for it's old shittier women only want romance movies. All the girls in them, when they were shitty to others the men didn't give them the time of day, the women who were good and kind and nice and treated those around them right, they always became the princess. Princes who were assholes got turned into monsters and had to learn to stop being dickheads and learn to treat people right in order to become princes again. If we want our prince or princess charming to come and sweep us off our feet with their glorious abs, and millions of dollars and their amazing cheeks, whichever set, then we also have to realize, we're peasants whether we want to believe it or not, we're nobodies all of us. These guys that you treat like shit, one of them probably views or viewed you as their princess charming the woman they wanted, and then you treated them like crap, ignored them, and threw them away. To our princes and princesses, we're nothing be peasants, if they see us treating all the other peasant like crap, why are they going to sweep us off our feet? Unless it's to drop us in a dumpster just do the road?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x44ua",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Men don't have to be friends with women. Common courtesy at work place. What aboutism does not change my mind. Just because one is wrong doesn't make the other right.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0x3x5f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xfoj1",
                    "author": "Gullible-Roll-8832",
                    "body": "it would be better if the young and pretty women mate with the older alpha rich males. The ugly and poor males can do grunt work and the aging females can keep the economies going with consumption of food and things. This can go on for as long as possible until a conservative country takes them over and then the cycle starts over again over a few hundred years.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xno79",
                    "author": "Ashamed_Ad9771",
                    "body": "Theres nothing wrong with having high standards/being picky. Its just important to accept that to have those standards met, you will also likely need to meet high standards. Either that, or you must be okay with the possibility of never having yours met. The only time I really take issue is with people have an attitude of \"I should be accepted just how I am, but I dont  have to accept anyone who isnt how I want them to be\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xog7m",
                    "author": "Future-Newt7855",
                    "body": "there is nothing wrong with this view. however! this is also applicable to men of similar standards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xucv8",
                    "author": "A_Reallife_Khajiit",
                    "body": "Agreed. But there's also nothing wrong with men choosing to be single or being unable to have a female partner. Society makes single men who can't get a date feel bad about themselves, and that's inappropriate. \n\nThere's nothing wrong with men OR women choosing to date/not to date/who to date.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0yk49y",
                    "author": "BuggSuperstar79",
                    "body": "downvoted",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0zu87a",
                    "author": "Morrigan_StRoma_709X",
                    "body": "Ah yes victim blaming don\u2019t we love it. You getting upset at hurting and emotionally damaged people for not being emotionally open is especially disgusting.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0zyui6",
                    "author": "angrygnome111",
                    "body": "Women don't have high standards they have unrealistic ones.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k107mve",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "And that concerns you because? Like why is it son hard to just not date them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0zyui6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k109dqm",
                    "author": "thisreallyisnotok",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s gotten to the point where most people dating don\u2019t act in their best self interest",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10ghjv",
                    "author": "rubrent",
                    "body": "Everyone wants to meet the person of their dreams but very few work to be the person of someone else\u2019s dreams\u2026\n\nMost humans are entitled, selfish, and lazy\u2026..",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10i0wl",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Exactly though. I feel if you can't give someone what they want or find a fair exchange then its not the others fault",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k10ghjv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10j0he",
                    "author": "srt76k10",
                    "body": "Gee, it's almost as if now that women have full rights and do not a man to provide for them that they now can select men based on their personal traits rather than how much money these men make...\n\nHow is this a bad thing?  Maybe men should work on being more dateable and less like incel complainers that believe they are entitled to a woman they are just gonna treat like a housemaid and literal object.  \n\nThey need to get out of their heads that they are gonna get an obedient housewife wife on a 30k salary.  Make at least 100k and maybe then it will happen.  \n\nUntil then, get prepared to treat your wife like a partner who is going to have her say 50% of the time and is going to be gone at work like you so you'll have to split the household chores and cooking and childcare duties.  Hint: your wife will be more likely to put out too if you actually do your half of the housework because she's just as tired as you are after work and isn't gonna be in the mood if you keep shoveling all the domestic work on her.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10j4b2",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yes. I'd like someone to tell me why its a bad thing.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k10j0he"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10rw3p",
                    "author": "Inquisitorgryphon",
                    "body": "You failed to mention the other more prevalent problem.  Women who aren't picky enough.  I've been married for 21 years, and during that time, I have been hit on more women than I can count. \n  Women have flirted with me in front of my wife, etc. Of course, it's my fault because ( and here is a direct quote from my wife) ,\"You treat women like they're worth something.\" \n  Too picky?! Who the h%ll thinks that?\nI am currently raising 3 grandchildren because my youngest step- daughter wasn't picky enough. I'm just saying that Chad/Tyrone isn't going to help you raise little Tralphaze.\n  Take it from a 61 year old man who has to spend his golden years changing diapers...do the entire planet a favor,  be as picky as you possibly can. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k112swn",
                    "author": "Long-Ad9651",
                    "body": "Yes, they have the right to prefer a diety to take human form and come rescue them from their own mistakes. Men have the right to say they would rather keep their health, wealth, and sanity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k116qp5",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Yes any one is fine to choose what they want? I'm not sure how this discounts anything I said?",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k112swn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k115jew",
                    "author": "Spirited_Pair9085",
                    "body": "We\u2019re told to be pick better men and when they\u2019re not \u201cpicked\u201d they get mad \ud83d\ude43 can\u2019t even have male friends bc most of them start saying creepy/stupid shit. I rejected a friend of 7 years, I said that he was being rude and I was upset at how he took the rejection, he then asked me \u201cwho raped you?\u201d \u2026 I actually was R. \ud83e\udd72 \n\nanother one said he didn\u2019t understand why he\u2019s single bc he\u2019s such a nice guy; proceeds to ask if I\u2019m ok bc he noticed my car (neighbors) wasn\u2019t there and I\u2019m \u201cusually at home and asleep\u201d by that time. As if I\u2019m not allowed to be out pay my bedtime. He said \u201csorry you feel that way\u201d \nI\u2019ve been single for 5 years now. Dated for a year and it was a total shit show lol",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k11l798",
                    "author": "Still_Spellworthy",
                    "body": "I don't think \"studies show signs women are much more happier than married women\" I mean I'm sure some studies show something similar to that. But you really shouldn't just assume the answer, and do some digging for yourself. What women were studied? How long were they studied? What age range? How long were the marriages? Did they have kids?\n\nYou started off your post with an assumption. Then said,  kinda obvious. I think you should examine why you think that should be kinda obvious. It may be obvious to you, but I don't think as many people agree with you as you think. I also think that you are most likely wrong, or overestimating the value of studies on abstract concepts like \"happiness\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k11n0u6",
                    "author": "LongJohnVanilla",
                    "body": "If women want to go back to polygamy I have no problem with that. I can marry 2-3 more women and you can share the benefits and obligations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k120lb3",
                    "author": "HearingNo4103",
                    "body": "\" rise of single men\" what are you even talking about. You're complaining about something that's not a thing. You might be projecting a personal issue here.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k12wbam",
                    "author": "LeftyLu07",
                    "body": "You're right about men not speaking up. Men also don't pursue women the way they used to. I worked with a guy who was really nice and cute. He moved out of town. The day after his last day, his friend in the department kinda chuckled and said \"you know, he had a huge crush on you.\" I said \"really? Why didn't he say anything? I thought he was cool. I would have totally gone out with him.\" His friend became serious and was like \"you're joking. You're not joking? You would have gone out with him?? Omg, this is gonna KILL him when I tell him.\" I was like \"yeah. That's honestly too bad :(\" \n\nI mentioned it to my dad later and he got kinda mad, because he was like \"how are these guys every going to find wives and girlfriends if they don't put themselves out there?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k130f2h",
                    "author": "TreyAnastasioIsAJedi",
                    "body": "Women commenting on this post should probably [take this test](https://igotstandardsbro.com) before doing so.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k131sgn",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I got a 23% soooo.... And you know dating isn't just about height weight and income? Like that's pretty shallow. You do you but that's shallow",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k130f2h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13lkli",
                    "author": "Adventurous-Purple-5",
                    "body": "Perhaps your male friends are people of action rather than words. Coming from experience, I ain't gonna say it but there's a switch of personality when happy/content and stressed/not content. Perhaps help lift the stressors rather than try to get them to talk.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1467mt",
                    "author": "Apprehensive_Elk9755",
                    "body": "How are your friends going to be able to lift the stressors if you don\u2019t communicate what these stressors are? Of course there are ways to support others that aren\u2019t talking but if there\u2019s very little chatting that can mean that people can\u2019t support you properly if you\u2019re not signally what your needs are. It can also become very burdensome for other people to support you if you don\u2019t put any effort into communicating your needs. Which is frustrating as a friend who wants to be there for someone (in whatever way is helpful). But more importantly for the person in need of the support it can really suck, make you feel uncared for and be isolating. It\u2019s a completely understandable way to behave but generally it\u2019s counterproductive for everyone involved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k13lkli"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k14b2g0",
                    "author": "No-Bar-6078",
                    "body": "This is the way.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k14orpi",
                    "author": "Atrothis21",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t disagree with the idea inherently, but I\u2019d also say it better go both ways and I better not hear a fuckin word about male commitment issues when Im done with school and finally have the monetary and time resources to be a self actualized \u2728man whore\u2728bc I don\u2019t care to date for love anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k151679",
                    "author": "throwaway6097941066",
                    "body": "Women can have whatever standards they want.  It\u2019s only whining that there aren\u2019t men who meet them that gets annoying.   If you only have the money for a 3 bedroom 1400sf starter ranch, don\u2019t complain that there are no 3000sf 5BR 3BAs on 2 acres of land in your price range.  Maybe ask yourself whether you meet the equivalent of your  standards before complaining that no men do. \n\nBut if you\u2019re happy being single, great.  You do you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k152ce1",
                    "author": "Western-Ad-9485",
                    "body": "Time to go back, this progress thing is stupid\u2026. \ud83d\udc4d Thanks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15fphn",
                    "author": "kittenTakeover",
                    "body": "A few things:\n\n* People don't owe anyone anything. Let's not assume that anyone has to change their behavior, including men. \n* It's okay to vent about being lonely as long as you're not blaming/shaming others for it.\n* Just because it's not womens fault doesn't mean that it has to be mens fault. Let's stop the blame game.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15hhep",
                    "author": "Affectionate-Hair602",
                    "body": "The problem is that single men tend to turn violent.  No society wants a bunch of single men running around.\n\nThat's the real issue and why we as a society need to think about how to proceed here.\n\nI'm not suggesting that women should lower their standards, but many of today's men are pretty pathetic.  They live in a world where they accept mediocrity.....yet feel entitled for a woman........OR they mentally live in a world that the grandfather lorded over....without realizing that everyone hated their grandfather, and there's plenty of good reasons the world changed.\n\nI'm not sure what the answer is, men seem very resistant to what had been the new reality.\n\nWith the overturning of Roe V Wade however, I wouldn't be surprised if this is all a moot point however, and we're all going to witness women's rights being systematically put back in the bag from this point on.  Especially if Trump wins re-election.\n\nA SCOTUS, Congress and Preisdent actively working against women's rights can do a lot of damage",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15qa9g",
                    "author": "latenerd",
                    "body": "There is nothing controversial about what you're saying. Why even ask for validation or debate? This shouldn't be debated. Can you even imagine what women \"changing their behavior\" would look like? Hey, ladies, just date men who behave badly and are unattractive to you! That should improve your life!\n\nWomen need to RAISE our standards, not lower them. Too many shitty, low effort, emotionally immature, and outright misogynistic and abusive men are dating or married right this minute. Too many are hurting their families as we speak. They deserve to die alone. Like it or not, women are gatekeepers to sex and reproduction because our bodies are on the line, and right now a lot of them are failing at their task.\n\nI won't try to change your view except to say that you may need to change your environment or friend group, if you are surrounded by people who have a problem with anything you say here.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k15vv3x",
                    "author": "reptheanon",
                    "body": "Why are you gay?",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k16gm4e",
                    "author": "CriticalStrikeDamage",
                    "body": "I just assume that dudes who do think there\u2019s something wrong with that are insecure about their small dicks or something.\n\nI know a lot of 25+ dudes who want a bad bitch, but will proceed to wear clothes they had in high school. Bonus points if their house is dirty and their is poop stains in their toilet 24/7.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k16p4jm",
                    "author": "greenglasstree",
                    "body": "If anything, men should raise their standards.\n\nEvery affluent man who complains about golddigers can avoid the problem simply by filtering out low income and uneducated women on OkCupid. If you date within your own income and education bracket, it's unlikely you will become the target of a golddigger.\n\nAlso, men who complain about women being single mothers are in the same scenario. A man I used to work with complained about how all the women who were 30+ were single mothers. I then asked him where he was trying to meet women. He says <insert working class town>. Richer and more educated people are less likely to be parents. They are less likely to be single parents. They are more likely to delay marriage and parenthood. If you want to find single people who are 30+ and don't have kids, you have to look in an area that is rich, educated, politically progressive, and atheist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k16pfjd",
                    "author": "Alone_in_Avalon",
                    "body": "Imho it\u2019s not about standards. I think there\u2019s something supremely wrong with a society that produces men than cannot love or cannot be loved. \n\nI don\u2019t think women need to \u2018dis\u2019 anything, but then trying to be so detached from the loneliness epidemic that men face also doesn\u2019t help either. If anything, it just makes things worse. \n\nI\u2019d also say your view on \u201cspeaking up\u201d is different. Woman can and are encouraged to speak up when the need arises. Men\u2026are not raised to speak their minds or their feelings like that. This goes back to my previous statement: there is something wrong with society that produces men that cannot emotionally function.\n\nI agree with the headliner, but the actual explanation leaves out so much nuance and complexity behind the issue\u2026",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k170bss",
                    "author": "Gringoguapisimo",
                    "body": "You\u2019re right.  What we have those is many women who are not picking, end up trash, and then find standards",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k171ckt",
                    "author": "classydouchebag",
                    "body": "Correct. Next?",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k17wmqw",
                    "author": "Infinite_Lawyer1282",
                    "body": "It's too expensive to date and have a family. Just stay single if you're broke. Girls or guys.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k184p5l",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "No the problem is when women are allowed to be picky but men are not.\n\nRing girls are sexist, good looking game characters are sexist, \n\nIf i am an athletic male and want an athletic so i am fatphobic.\n\nIf i am straight and do not want to date a trans i am transphobic.\n\nI want a woman who is blonde and blue eyed. I am racist.\n\nSimple question WHY ARE WOMEN ALLOWED THEIR STANDARDS BUT MEN ARE NOT.\n\nAnd for the record my wife of 24 years is blonde and blue eyed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k18a8ar",
                    "author": "noonereadsthisstuff",
                    "body": "I posted this somewhere else earlier today: \n\n\nSingle women are three times more likely to kill themselves than married women\n\nhttps://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/being-unmarried-makes-a-woman-a-higher-suicide-risk-6678947.html\n\n\nSuicide numbers peak in women aged 45-64\n\n\nhttps://www.statista.com/statistics/1114127/female-suicide-rate-in-the-us-by-age-group/\n\n\nPeople with children a lower risk of suicide than people with children:\n\n\n\nhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00127-022-02321-y\n\n\nUltimately you can be realistic about your relationships or you can be alone, and being alone doesnt sound like much fun.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k18oayt",
                    "author": "Low_Mess_2662",
                    "body": "Good",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k19tcdc",
                    "author": "HeroOfTime04021998",
                    "body": "The problem with what you have described, is that no one is saying it\u2019s women\u2019s fault, or that it is up to them to fix it. At least, no one who is actually considering the issue seriously. \n\nMen are lonely. That is all that\u2019s being said, and it\u2019s true. No one said that women need to fix it, we are just trying our best to find out why, and what we can do about it as a society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1aug3d",
                    "author": "futuredoc70",
                    "body": "I don't think most people are making the argument that women should do something to solve the problem of there being lots of lonely men.\n\nBut the fact there are too many lonely men is a societal problem.  It leads to lots of terrible things including violence.\n\nOf course if we look at it from the level of an individual or small groups we might argue \"well, they should just improve themselves and if they can't, they shouldn't take that out on women or society.\".  That falls apart on a societal level though.\n\nTl:Dr - No, it's not the responsibility of women to fix it, but it is a societal problem that needs to be addressed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1aumwy",
                    "author": "YerGodSterquilinus",
                    "body": "I realize this is change my view... but this view is the correct one. There indeed is zero wrong with remaining single if you dont find the partner you are looking for. It's tactically the correct move imo. Some people 'settle' for close enough for various reasons, and that is also ok. It's also ok to stay single. Also ok to stay single, and ok to stay single and have FWBs. Anyone who disagrees is pretty much shitting on autonomy of others and can fuck off.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1by8g0",
                    "author": "curious_george123456",
                    "body": "I don't know where this has ever been a thing but I would agree with you on this. At the end of the day it's about compatibility. If a woman is single sue to standards then I guess that just is what it is. If a dude can't find a woman I highly recommend they listen to the Alec Baldwin speech on glengerry glen ross. Fuckin loved that speech. Since then I've learned how to do a ton of shit. There was an article on [cracked.com](https://cracked.com) that featured that speech.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c2fq1",
                    "author": "emueller5251",
                    "body": "Women being picky does not necessarily mean those men are unsuitable for them. They could be \"picky\" for the wrong reasons, they could be focusing on superficial things and ignoring more important characteristics. At the end of the day choosing to date someone is a compromise on the part of both parties. No person is perfect and no person is a completely flawless match for someone else. Both parties need to be able to accept some level of imperfection and be able to adjust their standards. I think women with your attitude don't. It's not just about getting someone who's \"suitable\" for you, who lives up to your subjective standards. It's about being able to connect with someone and appreciate them for who they are, not just what value you perceive them as having.\n\nAnd I think that when views like this become widespread it's inherently damaging to society. People like to make this out to be an issue of entitlement, but it's about far more than just sex. Just look at the language you're using here: \"you don't deserve PLATONIC attention just for existing, why should I spend my emotional labor on you just because you're lonely?\" There used to be a time when seeing someone lonely would trigger sympathy in other people and make them want to comfort the person. The fact that everyone's default narrative these days is not just not to do that but to mock that person or scold them for making you \"spend your emotional labor\" on them is just beyond sad. It's like people are getting kicked when they're down, and the whole world is cheering on the person doing the kicking.\n\nAnd you might not think this affects you, but it does. You're putting tons of negative energy out into the world with this and further isolating people who are already isolated. That has tons of negative health impacts, contributes to the polarization and lack of community in this country, and increases the chances of radicalization. You should not want a bunch of lonely, totally isolated men in society because the more of them there are the more susceptible they are to extreme ideologies. I get it if we're talking about someone who's already started down that road, but these are people who aren't. They're faced with a choice between falling down a rabbit hole of fringe theories or attempting to find healthy connections in society, they're actively choosing the latter and opening up about being lonely, and you're reacting by castigating them for causing you to \"spend emotional labor.\"\n\nWe're a social species, we live in a complex social society. You may not like it, but that does mean that we do owe other people certain basic things like compassion and basic human understanding. If you're talking about not giving men any attention at all, not even platonic attention, then you're failing at a very basic level of operating in a society. Saying that men are deserving of human interaction and attention should not be a radical proposition. At the end of the day society is not about what we deserve but what we owe each other. If all you want to focus on is what you think you deserve then you can't be surprised when other people act the same way. When everybody in society acts that way, then you shouldn't be surprised when people start acting willfully spiteful because it serves their immediate self-interest. That's a society in decline.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c3udm",
                    "author": "hatpinfeminism",
                    "body": "Amen to this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c870e",
                    "author": "TheIrishJin",
                    "body": "Think of it this way. Honda could sell the Accord for 500k in hopes of attracting the people who usually buy a Rolls Royce. Now, there is nothing wrong with this strategy, but who TF is paying 500k for an Accord? This is how women act. Sure, they can have high standards, but then they can't complain they are single. If they can't find a man to meet their standards, ok, fair enough, but they lose all complaining rights. \n\nAlso, most of the women with crazy high standards are fat feminists who themselves are trash romantic partners. \n\nThe problem most men have is that women have standards and do nothing to justify those standards. \n\nAnd no, no decent man wants a fat chick. Just how it is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1c9cp8",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "this whataboutism I already mentioned. It doesn't matter to me. what my view is about is people saying that men being single is their fault. Using your car analogy its like people complaining they can't own a Honda. And its like Honda doesn't owe these cars. Similarly Honda isn't owed customers \n\nSo what's the problem. Let supply and demand fix itself",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1c870e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1h71ay",
                    "author": "Serious-Benefit855",
                    "body": "It literally happens in all of animal kingdom. How did human societies became such complex and so far removed from any type of biology is a true mystery for me",
                    "date": "2023-09-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1hjgr5",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1h71ay"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1l0ffh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": "Is the notion that women being picky is a \"problem\" supported by evidence or just societal expectations? What's inherently wrong with having standards?\n\nShould women compromise their happiness to fill a societal quota of partnered men? How does that contribute to a healthy society?\n\nIf men also choose not to open up emotionally, as you mentioned, isn't the issue reciprocal? Why lay the burden solely on women?\n\nIs emotional labor a one-way street or a mutual exchange? Why should women be expected to bear the brunt of it?\n\nAre societal problems ever solely the fault of one gender? What does it say about a society that expects women to lower their standards for the sake of men who won't do the same?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2v8x2i",
                    "author": "FJCJM",
                    "body": "If a man or woman remains single their entire life and they get toward of their life feeling it was the right choice for them. Great. For me, no life partner or children was not a choice I considered. Having both was certainly the right choice for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4bc7th",
                    "author": "Decent-Dream8206",
                    "body": "Doubt this will get read as I'm late to the thread, but whatever.\n\nI personally sit on both sides of this fence.\n\nIn Australia, as a SINK (Single Income No Kids), I'm in roughly the top 5% of \\*household\\* income earners.\n\nWhich means I'm not rich enough for that to be considered an attractive quality, even though I'll be retired by 42, own my own home and carry no debts.\n\nCollege-educated, don't smoke, no tattoos, no drugs, rarely even drink.\n\nI cook pretty damned well, I keep active (ice hockey -- yes, it exists in Australia) I speak another language, and on any given metric you want to use I'm better than probably 80% of women.  I actually don't know any single women that even know how to cook, and most of them consider themselves prudes -- so I struggle to even understand why I'm supposed to get involved in convincing them to get out of their own way.\n\nPeople say height doesn't matter, but online dating trends tell the truth; anyone under 6 foot struggles to even get their profile looked at.  I'm 5'10\" (which would actually put me above average, but it's too short to find a mate in any competitive dating environment from online through to speed dating or approaching in public).\n\nI know two single women roughly my own age.  They wouldn't even consider a man who doesn't own his own home, and both of them live with their parents.  One of them is 35 and has never held down a job for her \\*entire\\* life.  Even if you want to play the \"men don't care about that\" card, I sure as shit care that the divorce ticking time bomb is flat out broke and has no skin in the game of joint finances, meaning all the divorce proceeds in the jackpot are mine.  They never even consider measuring themselves by the same yardstick they measure men by.\n\nI've recently been told about a friend of a friend who's going to go on 50 dates before she gives up entirely.  That's great.  She will reject 50 guys and then claim that it's all their fault.  No matter what I do, I wouldn't be able to get 50 first dates in my lifetime.  This is the gaping hole in the male vs female experience laid bare.\n\nOn the flip side, yes, I agree that women being picky isn't necessarily a problem.  Single living is easier than it's ever been and unless you desperately want kids or struggle with loneliness, is probably the happiest living arrangement you can have.\n\nI would be less 'bitter' if I was being rejected by women who were universally more accomplished or I was behind the curve of the men.  But I've consistently been rejected by single mothers and all sort of red flag alerting crazies to know it's not me (and thank god I didn't even have to dodge those bullets), and the stats are very clear that women rate 80% of men as below average.  Then complain that there aren't any 'good' men left.\n\nIf you want to identify the problem, I suggest starting by figuring out just how unrealistic women's expectations have become in refusing to settle for someone they actually measure up to.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4bi84a",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why do you care about them though? If they reject you despite being hypocrites. Isn't thata good thing? Why do you want to spend time with hypocrites",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4bc7th"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6mvjb6",
                    "author": "TruthLemonade",
                    "body": "It seems as if women are no long denying the RedPill.  Women used to say, \"That is wrong!  The world is not like that!\"  Now women are saying, \"Yes, the world is like that, deal with it!\"  \n\nYou say nothing is wrong with this world.  \n\nOk, but do you think it is ok that in the West, life is clearly beneficial to women?  Women are clearly more privileged than men.  If this is the way the world is and you are ok with it, how would you feel if you were pregnant?  Wouldn't you really hope to have a girl as you admit that life is easier for women?  \n\nIt seems that it wasn't too long ago where society cared so very much about female self esteem.  Now it seems as if men really have the lower self esteem and most women say \"too bad.\"  \n\nIt seems as if the modern dating scene is like a battlefield.  A WWI battlefield, with men charging out of their trenches and getting shot in no man's land.  The women are behind their machine guns mowing us down and not getting shot.  They suffer no casualties (constant rejection, hopeless singledom), but it isn't really that they are better soldiers.  \n\nMen are expected to perform and compete in ways which are really hard, and women just plain aren't (dating apps, cold aproaches).  \n\nIt seems as if women are like tambourine playing backup singers looking for their Bruce Springsteen: a guitar playing singer songwriter.  And women think that is equality.  \n\nIt seems as if women expect me to guide the conversation entirely, while she just follows along, and women think that is equality.",
                    "date": "2023-10-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6mwxyj",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "First off. I am me..I don't care to entertain conversations about what the world did or the body positivity movement. That wasn't me. Judge me by how I act.\n\nNext. my view is really simple..no one is owed a relationship. That's it. If she's shallow. Dump her. So what. If everyone is shallow. So what. That is the world I am OK with",
                    "date": "2023-10-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k6mvjb6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94cnfu",
                    "author": "ScamLikely45",
                    "body": "I agree with you. This is my only caveat: I will NEVER suggest women lower their standards. The only thing Im asking moving forward: if this is what the new world is gonna look like, I want women to start being more honest (tell men that don't meet your standards why if they ask you directly. And be honest, (not just some fragment of the truth out the side of your necks.) \"Scam Im not attracted to you. You're cool to hang out with as a friend but I'm not attracted to you physically because XYZ.\" \n\nAnd when XYZ is the truth, move of us might be more like, \"Wow that's an honest woman!  There's probably more of them out there and maybe one of them MIGHT be attracted to me some day.  So now I dont feel like I need to go on an incel subreddit to find the truth about women, (because I don't feel like all of them are lying to my face and saying things that sound the uppost compendable socially.) know women are telling to my face.\"  \n\nThe problem whenever men are frustrated with the lack of honesty, \"I'm a woman. I can't be honest with men I'm not attracted to because muh safety.\" If this is supposed to be the new valid/acceptable explanation, (and the most sophisticated answer to this is going to be \"we don't owe men anything. Not even honesty. Bad men need to stop doing bad tings, nuffin else is wong,\" Then tells ME  that maybe for  the cultural  men/women dynamics..the  pendulum  has swung  a little to far in a single direction and MAYBE it's  time we start seeing it correct itself and boomarang back to a balance , (if a disproportionate amount of men society is pressuring them to feel a certain way they don't. And the truth they're being told doesn't explain the reality they're in. If you disagree with that, you're welcome to change my view",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94i2r9",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "OK but how do you determine if women are being honest. I've been honest and men don't believed. I've lied and of course men don't believe.\n\nIve been honest when I said my criteria is that men should be able to pull their own weight and check in on me emotionally. Listen to me for my desires. You have desires. Great. Talk about it too, but don't act entitled. All else will follow.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k94cnfu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaqm58e",
                    "author": "MaintenanceFalse1650",
                    "body": "If you want humanity to continue then yes there is a problem. Also, men don\u2019t vent bc women have used it against them in the past over and over. It seems to be a biological thing, you want a strong invulnerable man subconsciously.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kc9b33o",
                    "author": "Kappelmeister10",
                    "body": "The question is this, were women just SETTLING for men so they'd have access to resources? Men were marrying for love and yes Children aka Family, and women were marrying for ......well Money (and also children)? The only thing that has changed in modern society is that women have money, so this whole time they were marrying men they DIDN'T love? That blows my mind!",
                    "date": "2023-12-06",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kccuxvu",
                    "author": "PwnTheRest",
                    "body": "A lot of smart talk in this Reddit post but no one is talking about the elephant in the room. Your calling men \u201cindividuals\u201d gets if I a man, went around calling women by \u201cfemales\u201d or \u201choes\u201d that doesn\u2019t make me better. PS i think OP entirely mentally is a \u201cmain character\u201d mindset which has been extending and creating mental illness. Put down the instagram and make your own post on this called life. That\u2019s my reason why women have really ruined this \u201csociety\u201d of dating",
                    "date": "2023-12-07",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kduu7tq",
                    "author": "Responsible-Oil5082",
                    "body": "I feel truly sorry for any man who would want a woman that thinks like you. So what, gender warfare. People are people and some of us actually have compassion for others..",
                    "date": "2023-12-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kduuhb0",
                    "author": "Responsible-Oil5082",
                    "body": "Horrible human being. You illustrate the modern feminist and the way they expect to be put on a pedestal in a society built and maintained by men, all while dehumanizing them in every aspect of life..",
                    "date": "2023-12-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jc85e",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "People act like the rise of single men is somehow women's problem to fix. If women are picky the  that just means those men are not suitable for them. Why should women lower their standards? Studies show single women are much more happier than married women who are unhappy with their marriage  (kind of obvious but I'm putting it out there)\n\nA lot of men talk about how women won't even give the platonic attention. And why should they? Just for existing? And yes the same goes for women to women or men to men. Why should anyone give you attention just for existing?\n\nMy view is that its also on men. There's the stereotype that women don't speak up (the what do you want for dinner meme) but in my experience men don't either. I reach out to male friends knowing they were having a bit of stress and they just say they are stress. They don't vent etc  and that's fine if that's what they truly need. But I've since given up on a lot of friends because they also say one worded stuff  \n\nHow can you act like women don't care when we do. you just don't make effort. (Not saying all of course.)\n\nI just find it hard to understand why its on women. \n\nI guess my view is. Should women change their behaviour? Why should I spend my time and emotional labour on these men? Just for being lonely?",
                    "date": "2023-09-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: there's nothing wrong with a society where women are picky with their mate or choose to remain single",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jc85e/cmv_theres_nothing_wrong_with_a_society_where/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdydfyg",
                    "author": "No_Coach_6855",
                    "body": "They can choosey themselves all the way to dying with cats and alone.\n\nWho cares? Let them ruin their own lives lmao",
                    "date": "2023-12-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jc85e"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16jyqce",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0u6dbk",
                "author": "DameNisplay",
                "body": "In theory I agree that people should be more civil and open to the other side. But from experience, let me tell you that non-indigenous Australians absolutely hate indigenous Australians. This doesn\u2019t mean that they will be donning white robes and kicking them out of their neighbourhoods, and it doesn\u2019t mean they don\u2019t have \u201cmany aboriginal friends.\u201d But bring up indigenous Australians in just about any group, and you will see the (at best) casual racism come out. On the Australian subreddit a few days ago, someone from Canada posted about experiencing racism in rural Australia, and the otherwise progressive sub was in full \u201cwell, actually, they\u2019re not wrong to warn you about the aborigines\u201d mode. Non-indigenous Australians think of indigenous Australians the way Europeans think about the Romani. It\u2019s so ingrained. \n\nI guess my point is, this isn\u2019t a \u201cpeople reacting to the left\u201d problem. It\u2019s a problem that\u2019s already there. It\u2019s like climate change protesters. People will come out and say \u201cwe\u2019d be sympathetic if they weren\u2019t blocking highways.\u201d Well if that\u2019s true, why weren\u2019t they sympathetic before the protesters started blocking highways? It\u2019s because they\u2019re opposed to climate change action regardless of how polite protesters are. And besides, if being polite and civil worked, why would these same people be so openly hostile to lgbt people? Surely if they believe civility is the key, they wouldn\u2019t bombard you with bigoted bullshit all the time.\n\nAnyway, this is a mess of an answer with no proper conclusion. If it hasn\u2019t changed your mind slightly, I hope that\u2019s because you disagree with me and not because you couldn\u2019t comprehend this word salad.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16jyqce"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0z2u5o",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Non-indigenous Australians think of indigenous Australians the way Europeans think about the Romani. It\u2019s so ingrained.\n\nYou don't have to remind me. [Some of the people I've been debating are talking of Indigenous Australians just like how Romani are talked about](https://www.reddit.com/r/AusPol/comments/15auv42/comment/jtnowep/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).\n\n>I guess my point is, this isn\u2019t a \u201cpeople reacting to the left\u201d problem. It\u2019s a problem that\u2019s already there. It\u2019s like climate change protesters. People will come out and say \u201cwe\u2019d be sympathetic if they weren\u2019t blocking highways.\u201d Well if that\u2019s true, why weren\u2019t they sympathetic before the protesters started blocking highways? It\u2019s because they\u2019re opposed to climate change action regardless of how polite protesters are. And besides, if being polite and civil worked, why would these same people be so openly hostile to lgbt people? Surely if they believe civility is the key, they wouldn\u2019t bombard you with bigoted bullshit all the time instead of letting the debate be settled in the marketplace of ideas.\n\n!delta\n\nI can't be 100% sure that our side's vitriol and cockiness is what turned people off. After all, there was a time before Australia's culture war reached the dangerous level it is at now - and these people weren't openly backing the Voice to Parliament or LGBT rights back then.",
                "date": "2023-09-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0u6dbk"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0z2y2f",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DameNisplay ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DameNisplay)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0z2u5o"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0sxaoh",
                    "author": "PMMEUR_3RD_BEST_NUDE",
                    "body": ">And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come\n\nNone of the issues you've laid out are a result of holding the referendum. They are either the result of the actions of people who support the referendum or the actions of people who oppose the referendum. \n\n1. Listen I'm not an Australian, so maybe there's something I'm missing here, but a politician facing vitriol is the default state of being a politician. Would this Warren Mundine guy not have faced criticism absent this referendum? \n\n2. People call electoral fraud all the time. I'm not aware of a single election or referendum it hasn't occurred in. People in Britain did it during Brexit, people in Brazil did it during their elections, and people in the US do it literally every single election, in fact, they don't even wait until the election has happened to claim the election will be fraudulent. Unverified claims of voter or electoral fraud aren't a function of any specific elections or referendum they're a function of an adversarial electoral system and people being sore losers.  \n\n3. How exactly is the referendum preventing the left in Australia from standing up for LGBT people? Is the left throwing them under the bus to try to win the referendum?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0syk8n",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Listen I'm not an Australian, so maybe there's something I'm missing here, but a politician facing vitriol is the default state of being a politician. Would this Warren Mundine guy not have faced criticism absent this referendum?\n\nHe's been in politics for a long time. Prior to this referendum, the vitriol he received wasn't sufficient to make him suicidal.\n\n>People call electoral fraud all the time. I'm not aware of a single election or referendum it hasn't occurred in. People in Britain did it during Brexit, people in Brazil did it during their elections, and people in the US do it literally every single election, in fact, they don't even wait until the election has happened to claim the election will be fraudulent. Unverified claims of voter or electoral fraud aren't a function of any specific elections or referendum they're a function of an adversarial electoral system and people being sore losers.\n\nPreviously, this wasn't the case in Australia. Our electoral system was considered very trustworthy, and anyone claiming electoral fraud wouldn't be taken seriously. Nowadays, a precedent has been set, that has brought our politics to the same volatile level as in the UK, Brazil and USA.\n\n>How exactly is the referendum preventing the left in Australia from standing up for LGBT people? Is the left throwing them under the bus to try to win the referendum?\n\nThe left isn't throwing the LGBTs under the bus. Instead the left exhausted its political capital, and now the right is swooping in to kick them while they are down. Also, this doomed referendum weakened the left and provided the right with a golden opportunity to attack LGBTs.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0sxaoh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t0hgv",
                    "author": "Wigglebot23",
                    "body": "Does an advisory body really consume all that much political capital? I love in the United States and pay little attention to Australian politics but this seems to be something that is way too small to cause any damage",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t291k",
                    "author": "DivideEtImpala",
                    "body": ">in the United States and pay little attention to Australian politics\n\nSame boat, I was only vaguely aware of this referendum, but reading OP and a few of the links, it sounds like this has become something of culture war flashpoint. It seems similar to how our political media focuses on things like Hunter Biden and pronouns rather than the actual economic realities that impact everyone. \n\nIs it important in terms of policy? Probably not, but it's likely that it's turned at least some left-center people more to the right. That's what the culture war does here, at least, and Murdoch (from Australia) is the master of crafting narratives to drive that shift.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t0hgv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t0odc",
                    "author": "GadgetGamer",
                    "body": "> With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud.\n\nThat is just the Fox-lite conservatives trying to import \u201cthe big lie\u201d from the US, and this would happen at any election where they don\u2019t like the outcome. The whole idea of planting the idea that only voter fraud to lead to a loss for their side is straight out of Donald Trump\u2019s playbook. Just because they want to be evil and undermine the electoral process does not mean that we should just cancel elections.\n\nThe real problem that the advocates for the Yes side has terrible messaging. When I got interested in what this referendum was I checked out a couple of articles summing up the Yes and No positions, and after I finished reading them I still had no idea of what problem this was trying to solve.\n\nBut just because I was not informed enough of the details and he Yes people were bad at messaging is not a reason to just not have the referendum.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0t3f72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">That is just the Fox-lite conservatives trying to import \u201cthe big lie\u201d from the US, and this would happen at any election where they don\u2019t like the outcome. The whole idea of planting the idea that only voter fraud to lead to a loss for their side is straight out of Donald Trump\u2019s playbook. Just because they want to be evil and undermine the electoral process does not mean that we should just cancel elections.\n\nIt is a big lie. It is a repugnant tactic. Hence why it's a huge problem that they managed to make this tactic work in Australia, when in previous Australian elections, no one considered allegations of electoral fraud plausible.\n\n>The real problem that the advocates for the Yes side has terrible messaging. When I got interested in what this referendum was I checked out a couple of articles summing up the Yes and No positions, and after I finished reading them I still had no idea of what problem this was trying to solve.\n\nI agree - the stakes are high in this referendum because the vast majority of people can be swayed by activists and propaganda because they don't take the effort to make themselves informed. The activists know this, and this makes for even more toxic and aggressive political actions.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0t0odc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tflbb",
                    "author": "Splitface2811",
                    "body": "Tbh the main problem with this referendum is that it's not clear what the voice will actually be. Last time there was a change to the Australian constitution the people were given a copy of what the proposed change would be. This is just asking \"do you want to change the constitution? We'll decide what exactly it'll change to after\"\n\nI don't personally have a problem with the voice as a concept, but when even the people who proposed the idea are against what it has become, it seems like the execution is something to vote against.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tgxv9",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I don't personally have a problem with the voice as a concept, but when even the people who proposed the idea are against what it has become, it seems like the execution is something to vote against.\n\nThat is the point of my post. I made an effort to read about what the voice entails, and that's why I'm voting Yes (I also know people IRL who got informed and decide to vote No). \n\nBut I agree with you that the execution has been horrifically botched, because it opened the floodgates to extra problems for the left to deal with for years to come.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tflbb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0trnj0",
                    "author": "Jakyland",
                    "body": "\"My political opponent's rhetoric have driven me to near suicide\". I am highly skeptical - anybody can say that, and its a message that is convenient  helpful for advancing his political position. \n\nIt's pretty common for over the top rhetoric to make someone fear for their safety -- but why does it make this guy want to kill himself? That is just odd and doesn't pass the smell test. The opponents rhetoric made him depressed or doubt his self-worth?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k11h7px",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">\"My political opponent's rhetoric have driven me to near suicide\". I am highly skeptical - anybody can say that, and its a message that is convenient helpful for advancing his political position. \n\nBasically, he did a [wounded gazelle gambit](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WoundedGazelleGambit). People like you might be highly skeptical, but here it successfully pushed more people towards the No camp because it made them disgusted with the Yes camp.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0trnj0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0tsxs7",
                    "author": "Jekawi",
                    "body": ">As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards railing against LGBTs. \nIf we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\n\nI agree that this referendum is gonna cause more problems no matter the outcome. However, I absolutely do not understand what this had to do with the LGBT community. If the left-wing fails in the referendum and that exhausts their ability to support the LGBT community, then they were never good support anyway. \n\nIn fact, I'd go as far to say that you using this to support your point is completely ignoring the actual community that would be affected: the indigenous community. Talking about a referendum vote that directly affects them, win or lose, and your negative take away is \"oh no the LGBT community!\" I think is undermining your credibility as actually caring about the indigenous community and this referendum is/will affect them.\n\nBut on to another point. The media has been shown to inflate the loudest voices in any similar situation. Controversy generates clicks and cookies, targeted advertising, and social media algorithms will encourage the divide. I'm not sure that this vote is destined to fail, but most of all, should it fail, I don't think you should see it as a win for the right. A lot of people across the spectrum will vote yes or no for other reasons. If this fails, to immediately think \"stupid right-wing propaganda/votes\" doesn't help anything and doesn't even have to be true. In that way, you would be contributing to the polarisation of politics in Australia.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0z5m61",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">In fact, I'd go as far to say that you using this to support your point is completely ignoring the actual community that would be affected: the indigenous community. Talking about a referendum vote that directly affects them, win or lose, and your negative take away is \"oh no the LGBT community!\" I think is undermining your credibility as actually caring about the indigenous community and this referendum is/will affect them.\n\nI didn't intend to imply that the LGBT community is a bigger victim than the indigenous community. What I did intend to imply is that we didn't realise that merely having this referendum is like opening Pandora's Box - because not only are we almost certain to lose, we've accidentally laid the gates open to more right-wing gains.\n\nTo use an analogy, holding this referendum is like lighting a candle, but we did such a phenomenally bad job that we set our house on fire (i.e. created a situation where electoral fraud allegations have become popular and the right becomes so successful that it can wage war on LGBTs again).\n\n>If this fails, to immediately think \"stupid right-wing propaganda/votes\" doesn't help anything and doesn't even have to be true. In that way, you would be contributing to the polarisation of politics in Australia.\n\nI don't consider my opponents to be stupid or racist. I consider my opponents to be extremely intelligent because of how they're able to turn this one referendum into multiple victories for the right, even despite the majority of Indigenous elders, the arts sector and academia supporting the Yes camp. [Likewise, I use the term \"racist\" very sparingly](https://imgur.com/a/BYXKkS0) \\- and if the No camp is inherently racist, they wouldn't be playing the \"ackshually the Yes camp is more racist\" card. Additionally, I try to be respectful to my opponents because I don't want to make our side look evil.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0tsxs7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ue6ea",
                    "author": "ShootingPains",
                    "body": "Framing this as left vs right was the big error.  To succeed, a constitutional question needs to transcend such narrow political pigeon holes.\n\nThe yes campaign needs to ask itself why in the 1967 referendum a massive 91% of a predominantly white Australia voted yes, but now in 2023 the yes campaign can\u2019t even hit 50% in a much more metropolitan and multicultural nation.  The answer isn\u2019t that racism has somehow massively increased.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0z6d84",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The yes campaign needs to ask itself why in the 1967 referendum a massive 91% of a predominantly white Australia voted yes, but now in 2023 the yes campaign can\u2019t even hit 50% in a much more metropolitan and multicultural nation.  The answer isn\u2019t that racism has somehow massively increased.\n\nThe answer is that back in 1967, despite Australian society being a lot more racist back then, [basically no effort was made to organise a No campaign](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74lxot/comment/dnzgbkp/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ue6ea"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xp2sj",
                    "author": "International_Ice_68",
                    "body": "The referendum can still pass. 20% of the population is still undecided. The left is so weak dammit, this is a ridiculously watered down version of what it could be, because since \"new Labor\" and Tony Blair the left has globally prioritised winning elections to the point of watering down any policy to make it palatable to conservatives. People aren't going to change political affiliation because something is less repulsive to them, they will change for a stronger idea or urgency.\n\n\nThe reason everyone has focused on fringe ideas is that there has been no substance in the middle. Is albo hiding somewhere? Seriously, SURELY the government has someone with a pulse \n\nThere isn't really that strong of a case for the voice. The case against it is pretty weak too, because it's a non-elected advisory body with no jurisdiction - it can't really cause any harm. The \"No\" camp is simply loud and the \"yes\" case is absent.\n\nWe've had months of campaigning where both sides accuse the other of being bad characters because there is actually nothing of substance to debate. \n\nAustralia will be fine. Let's just hope that the next progressive government finds a spine and some balls, otherwise it'll just be business as usual with a nicer face.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xwpu4",
                    "author": "Training_Pause_9256",
                    "body": "It hasn't a chance. So many businesses and religious organisations are backing the yes vote that it can be extremely damaging for someone to admit to being a 'No' voter. I actually know a few people who would only admit to me in private that they will be voting No but can't openly admit it due to issues it will cause them. It doesn't help when the PM strongly implied things about No voters as well. \n\nThe Yes vote is far lower than it seems... nobody is risking their career, saying they will vote No to a random surveyor. Especially if they are in a group.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0xp2sj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13lvjn",
                    "author": "SimpleSure7356",
                    "body": "I'm voting no for fiscal reasons however; the racism that I have observed in reddit threads, Linkedin comment threads and so on has both flawed and appalled me. Perhaps I am naive- but I really feel so disgusted by some of the words I have seen written. \n\nI don't know if it's a 'good' thing that the cloak has been pulled on the true extent of racism or Australia would have been better if the Voice was never thought into existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k195k2h",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I'm voting no for fiscal reasons however; the racism that I have observed in reddit threads, Linkedin comment threads and so on has both flawed and appalled me. Perhaps I am naive- but I really feel so disgusted by some of the words I have seen written.\n\nIronically, fiscal reasons are one of my reasons for voting Yes. Australia already spends a lot of money on trying to help its indigenous people - [and this spending fails to achieve anything](https://bmcinthealthhumrights.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-698X-7-9) (and that paper contrasts our results with [other rich countries that have an equivalent of a Voice to Parliament](https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook47p/IndigenousConstitutionalRecognitionRepresentation)). To me, voting No is to vote for a continuation of a wasteful and failed system.\n\n>I don't know if it's a 'good' thing that the cloak has been pulled on the true extent of racism or Australia would have been better if the Voice was never thought into existence.\r  \n\r\n\nActually, my main worry when writing this post was not racism, but rather that a major party has begun promoting the belief that our elections are fraudulent. What's stopping electoral fraud allegations from tainting future elections? And what's stopping this from setting a dangerous precedent (i.e. what if some people on the Yes camp promote the belief that they lost because of electoral fraud)?",
                    "date": "2023-09-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k13lvjn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16jyqce",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post was originally going to be titled \"*CMV: We on the left need to show more civility because a lack of it is costing our side votes*\"\n\nOriginally, I was only going to talk about how I am dismayed about how fellow supporters of the [Voice to Parliament](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Voice_to_Parliament) have discredited our side by acting cocky and vitriolic. This has lead to politicians like [Warren Mundine becoming suicidal](https://twitter.com/SBSNews/status/1696777749120295228) \\- and if he does kill himself, the right-wing will never shut up about it and it will be a huge stain on our side. As a consequence, the [Voice to Parliament is forecast to lose by a large margin](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-09/voice-to-parliament-uluru-statement-yes-vote-fallen-no-ahead/102832938) even despite [the support of the majority of Indigenous elders](https://www.mamamia.com.au/indigenous-elders-on-the-voice/), the arts sector and academia. But I've decided to expand the scope of this CMV as Australia's right-wing has been making ever larger gains.\n\nNow, as to why I think Australia would be better off if we never bothered to do this almost certainly doomed referendum:\n\n* The aforementioned problem of Warren Mundine facing vitriol, [has since grown to politicians and artists on both sides receiving vitriol](https://archive.is/PNXDA) due to this referendum.\n* With such a large percentage of Australians already intending to vote No, a belief has emerged [that if the Yes camp somehow wins, it will be due to electoral fraud](https://archive.is/4ebWd).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, the concept of electoral fraud in Australia would have remained a laughable fringe theory, instead of becoming a widespread belief supported by a major news outlet.\n   * I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets a precedent (i.e. some people on the Yes camp might now go tit-for-tat and protest about electoral fraud when they lose).\n   * Also, what is stopping this belief of electoral fraud from causing problems every time we have an election from now on?\n* As it looks almost certain that the No camp will win, politicians on the No side now have the leeway to divert their efforts towards [railing against LGBTs](https://archive.is/8MftI).\n   * If we never bothered to do this referendum, Australia's left-wing would remain able to effectively stand up for the LGBTs instead of having expended all its political capital for a referendum that's almost certain to lose anyway.\n\nSo, to conclude, while I will vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament because I consider it a good idea, I must also admit that it is almost certain to lose. And losing this referendum is only the tip of the iceberg, as merely holding this referendum has opened up a Pandora's Box of headaches that the left now has to address for years to come. Not to mention that losing means that it would be years, if not decades, before the Australia's left-wing has regained the political capital to try to implement a policy to reduce Indigenous disadvantage. Even if the Yes camp wins, this would be a case of \"won the war, lost the peace\". Because despite winning, we'd now have to deal with a lot of people very angry about LGBTs and alleged electoral fraud.\n\nI wish we were able to quietly fix the problems of Indigenous Australians so that we never needed to hold a referendum that is damaging the very fabric of Australia. Plus, of course, quietly fixing the problems means that we don't have a subset of our citizenry living in embarrassingly poor conditions. Or if failing that, I wish we were able to convince the majority of Australians to vote Yes.\n\n**TLDR:** My post is not to say \"*just be lazy, don't bother*\". It is to say \"*we screwed up, and consequently we are now going to lose much more than just this referendum*\". We did failed to foresee that merely holding this referendum would release so many extra problems.\n\n**Edit**: This is not to say that I believe the referendum should be cancelled. The damage has already been done.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: As someone who intends to vote Yes to the Voice to Parliament, we would be better off if we never bothered to hold this almost certainly doomed referendum.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16jyqce/cmv_as_someone_who_intends_to_vote_yes_to_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1l1q4x",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": "Is avoiding conflict the best way to solve deeply entrenched social issues? How'd that work for civil rights movements?\n\nShould the left give up on initiatives that challenge the status quo because they're difficult and divisive? What happens to progress?\n\nIf you assume a loss will set back your cause for years, aren't you conceding defeat and weakening your own side's resolve? How does that help you win future battles?\n\nIs the problem actually the referendum, or is it the vitriolic behavior on both sides? Would avoiding the referendum have truly solved that?\n\nIf the 'Voice to Parliament' issue sparks allegations of electoral fraud, what's to say other issues won't do the same in the absence of this referendum? Are you suggesting that avoiding contentious issues keeps democracy safe?\n\nDoes conceding political capital on one issue necessarily leave you empty-handed on others? How do you explain historical multi-front advances in social justice?\n\nShould fear of a Pandora's Box prevent tackling fundamental issues head-on? What does that say about societal courage?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16jyqce"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16k96cz",
                "author": "silveryfeather208",
                "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0uelv5",
                "author": "Nrdman",
                "body": "One thing to consider is that magic items /spells must be  invented over time (snape invented sectumsempra). We know how capable wizards are in the modern period, we have no idea how capable the average wizard is in the past. \n\nAccording to the [potter wiki](https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Killing_Curse?so=search#cite_note-TBB-10) the unforgivable curse didn\u2019t exist untill early Middle Ages, presumably in Europe. So before that time, who knows what spells they actually have \n\nAnd frankly a couple of archers out range magic if it\u2019s open war.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16k96cz"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0ugymz",
                "author": "silveryfeather208",
                "body": "!delta I would love to see the lore explored. Maybe witches were a mutation or something much like vampires in the vampire diary. Not a mutation in that case but a recent \"invention\" (if you watch the originals)",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0uelv5"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0uh23p",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Nrdman ([34\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Nrdman)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0ugymz"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ucv6h",
                    "author": "parishilton2",
                    "body": "Muggles build a lot of things that wizards rely on. Roads, houses, bridges. And wizards live with Muggles in their communities and sometimes even their homes (like Squibs). I don\u2019t see why a wizard would be especially incentivized to kill a member of their family or community.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ud764",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Because hiding sucks? And I said at the very least it doesn't make sense that they would hide. \n\nAlso we see that the muggles don't build their stuff. It seems to me muggle society and wizard society are mostly separate.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ucv6h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uenix",
                    "author": "NotMyBestMistake",
                    "body": "So, ignoring that the world of Harry Potter has never actually made much sense, there's just not really a reason to wipe out all the muggles? Wizards literally live in their own isolated spaces where they don't seem to even want to develop or grow as a society. They're not even really neighbors to muggles, they all teleport to some undisclosed hermitage that no muggle can ever reach.\n\nAs to why society's never acknowledge them, they did? Maybe this is some deep, incomprehensible Jowling lore, but a lot of real societies had wizards and witches and shamans and astrologers and sorcerers and so on.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ug2up",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "Okay but this is an element of the story that is fundamental to telling it, so it's pointless to argue. The reason that the harry potter world is able to coexist and hide from muggles is because those are necessary elements in a story about a secret magic boarding school existing in modern times",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ugk1p",
                    "author": "polyvinylchl0rid",
                    "body": "Not a potterhead so maybe this is debunked somewhere. But i look at it similar to the prime directive from star trek.\n\nWizards arent hiding out for fear or anything like that. But to protect muggles and allow them to live a normal life. I could easile immagine muggles would be second class citizens in a society where they coexist with wizards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ugq93",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "It'd hard to believe people would be this nice. Like a five percent of dick heads I think would be enough to change the world",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ugk1p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uipvc",
                    "author": "Opening_Tell9388",
                    "body": "Idk. A .357 is still a fucking .357. I can up and blow away a few wizards before they twirl their stick.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uivlb",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "What if they walk around with protection spells. Then after that you'd be dead. And as I said pre guns you'd be powerless",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uipvc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ukjst",
                    "author": "Elderberry_Horror",
                    "body": "I think there are a few factors that are in play for wizards to have gone into hiding and to remain hidden. The main ones would be:\n\n1) population sizes - while we don't get exact figures for the size of the population I would estimate the ratio of wizards/witches to be about 1 witch or wizard for each 3000-5000 muggles. If you take this sort of ratio is means that in the middle ages the wizarding population in England might have only been 500 or less across the entire country vs a muggle population of \\~2 million. These 500 don't necessarily know each other, are spread out most likely living as small family units within muggle populations. \n\n2) Wizards have become more powerful over time. With wizards being mostly small family units they tended to be home-schooled which limits the development and spreading of magic. This is why the founding of Hogwarts and the other wizarding schools is so groundbreaking. By bringing together the future of the wizarding world in one place you allow magic learning to spread with wizards and witches learning from each other including students being educated by the smartest witches and wizards around. \n\nAs a note, the small population sizes and the strength of wizards to muggles is shown by the disagreement within the Hogwarts founders. They have to convince parents to let their children be taught in a wizarding school which if it was ever to be found by muggles would be a massive target. Especially at the beginning where you are talking 4 teachers with a couple of dozen students.  This is likely one of the reasons Slytherin didn't want to teach muggleborns, because they were the most likely security risk and most likely to result in a muggle army/mob attempting to breach the school and kill the students (BTW a basilisk would be really helpful in defending against an army). \n\nThese factors combined meant you had small family units spread out with limited magical ability. If everyone in the village/town knew you were magical that was putting a massive target on you and your families heads. This incentives hiding because even if you were to fight and defend yourself, killing a bunch of muggles, this would just create more hate and you and your entire family would be killed by sheer numbers. \n\nNow why would they have to hide and not live in harmony? Because people hate/fear those who are different. There are also some who would try and force the wizards/witches to work for them. You can see this throughout human history.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ul5wg",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Good on you for actually running the numbers. !delta",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ukjst"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ukxv8",
                    "author": "redditordeaditor6789",
                    "body": "I think it was important for kids reading it to be able to think this world secretly was happening, than giving a realistic reason for why it had to be hidden. I think it was part of what hooked a lot of readers in. That it didn't take place in a fully made up fantasy world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uo14z",
                    "author": "future_shoes",
                    "body": "The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997.  Cell phone cameras did not exist.  The Internet was around but not widely used by the average person.  Tabloid journals regularly printed outlandish stories about unsubstantiated super natural events which people dismissed as fiction.\n\nIn that time period it is much more likely that a relatively small population of wizards could hide from society at large.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0usvcr",
                    "author": "NevadaCynic",
                    "body": "The only difference between that world in this world is the crazy kooks on AM radio would be right, most people still wouldn't believe them.\n\nWe have people in this world to claim magic is real. All the change it makes one specific brand of conspiracy theory real instead of all of them being fake.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ut1o4",
                    "author": "waterboy1321",
                    "body": "I believe the only time this is discussed in the books someone (maybe Hagrid) says that in the modern era they hide because the Muggles would always be asking them to fix their problems and give them stuff.\n\nIn the books, their magic isn\u2019t really that powerful that it can do all of that, so canonically, the vast majority of wizards super hiding because otherwise they would be constantly put upon by muggles. In fact, it could even get dangerous.\n\nTo illustrate this, imagine a person with a sick child sees a witch doing literal magic, but then that witch (who can do literal magic) tells the person that they can\u2019t cure their child\u2019s cancer. This would breed conspiracy theories (they\u2019re keeping all the magic to themselves!) and likely lead to attacks, and the average wizard can\u2019t stop bullets or resist a crowd of their wand is lost. Better just to hide.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uv76e",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "That's true. I'm just wondering how powerful most wizards and witches are. Can they just accio the swords or whatever?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ut1o4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uukyd",
                    "author": "Dubbleedge",
                    "body": "If you're looking for plot consistent or reason in the harry potter books, you're gunna have a bad time. Don't get me wrong, I loved them as a kid, but they're very poorly written with holes bigger than countries.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vk5g7",
                    "author": "Lord_Maynard23",
                    "body": "There was already a muggle war. The muggles destroyed the Wizarding world and forced them into hiding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w73jz",
                    "author": "Malice_n_Flames",
                    "body": "What\u2019s a muggle?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0we1fz",
                    "author": "TAMILIANPSYCHO",
                    "body": "If they existed in real life they'd manipulate things from behind the scenes to extract influence and power without revealing themselves. Hell, there are occult groups that do the same exact thing without having quite the same explosive magic of hp\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choi_Soon-sil",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wfs91",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "The Wizarding World has the same problem the Muggle world does: you discount for the number of idiots. If the wizards tried to be in plain sight or to take over the earth, either way someone would mess it up.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x0egj",
                    "author": "metallee98",
                    "body": "Coexisting and not hiding are very different things. People hate anything that's different than them. So the end state of not hiding is either the eradication of non magic humans or the eradication of magic humans. Like you cant tell me that normal humans wouldnt get bloodthirsty over people that basically have super powers including mind control, flying, summoning, telekinesis, and a bunch of elemental powers. Like the mind control spell alone would cause paranoia to go through the roof. And hiding benefits the magic people too. They basically get access to all the good things about modern society. Coexisting is probably impossible. But I imagine if the world found out and didnt turn into anarchy we would be scooping em up into the military industrial complex to make some kind of super murder spells or something.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xm7fd",
                    "author": "zmz2",
                    "body": "Humans are really really good at killing people, and we have been for a long time. The statue of secrecy first came into being because of violence against wizardkind, and we\u2019ve only gotten better at killing since then. \n\nWizards may be powerful but they are massively outnumbered, and once we get to the industrial era our population explodes even more, we get so good at killing we can do it from miles away, and in the end we harnessed the power of the sun. Not sure how well even the strongest protection spell would stand up to a thermonuclear weapon",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0y1um9",
                    "author": "Ambitious_Fan7767",
                    "body": "I read an interesting take orbmaybe i heard it.  It essentially looked at hermoine and how fucking miserable her parents must be.  They can work and study and train for years to do things she can do with the flick of a wrist, she will apparently outlive them by double, she exists in the real world and they exist in a world with kid gloves.  The worst looks she gets arent looks of hate but sadness and jealousy.  Wizards hide because what a hellscape for humans to realize they simply arent capable of wonders, these wonders exist but they simply arent for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10idjk",
                    "author": "Chillout422",
                    "body": "Wrong. \n\nThe wizards in harry potter are more Kin to Xmen mutants. Its genetic, they are actually physically stronger than regular humans and live longer. But if you arent born a wizard you cant use magic in that world. Meaning if they were exposed on a large scale theyd be persecuted. \n\nIts actually hinted at the fact they do indeed stay seperate because of a persecution when they were open in the middle ages.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13csai",
                    "author": "RazeSpear",
                    "body": "Could partly be a compromise between the Pureblood Elitists and everybody else.\n\nWithout the Statute of Secrecy, in their minds, they either have to subjugate the muggles or integrate with them.\n\nIf Draco's friends at Hogwarts entertain muggles with magic,",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13dgap",
                    "author": "RazeSpear",
                    "body": "Could partly be a compromise between the Pureblood Elitists and everybody else.\n\nWithout the Statute of Secrecy, in their minds, they either have to subjugate the muggles or integrate with them.\n\nIf Draco's classmates at Hogwarts entertain muggles with magic on their summer breaks, Draco might be invited along, see that their interactions are harmless, make muggle friends, develop a crush even. It's enough to make a Death Eater queasy.\n\nBut with the Weasleys and Longbottoms of their world ready to stand up should the Muggles be threatened, their options are Civil War or politics. Thus the Malfoys and other Pureblood families use their vast reserves of gold to keep themselves away, for fear of having a half-blood grandchild.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1kzjo0",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": "Is the assumption that wizards can coexist with muggles based solely on their magical power, ignoring the complexity of social, cultural, and psychological factors? Do you think magical abilities necessarily translate to societal dominance?\n\nIf brainwashing muggles is \"easy,\" does that imply ethical acceptability? What's to prevent a society built on such coercion from eventually imploding?\n\nShould the rarity of figures like Grindelwald in wizarding history be seen as an anomaly, or as evidence of a stable, self-regulating community? Are you assuming that magical communities are inherently more prone to radicalization than non-magical ones?\n\nIs the lack of historical accounts of wizards wiping out muggle populations indicative of restraint or something else? Could it be that wizards value a harmonious coexistence more than you give them credit for?\n\nIf wizards and muggles have coexisted secretly for centuries, what makes you so certain that the secret wouldn't hold in today's world? Have you considered that the wizarding world might have means to remain concealed that you've overlooked?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16k96cz",
                "author": "silveryfeather208",
                "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0uhnnj",
                "author": "ArguteTrickster",
                "body": "The books do not have a ton of logic or consistency to them, and it's kinda useless to try to make them work. If you poke them they fall apart.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16k96cz"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0uiqwi",
                "author": "silveryfeather208",
                "body": "!delta its a fair point I shouldn't think too much on this",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0uhnnj"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0uiwji",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ArguteTrickster ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ArguteTrickster)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0uiqwi"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ucv6h",
                    "author": "parishilton2",
                    "body": "Muggles build a lot of things that wizards rely on. Roads, houses, bridges. And wizards live with Muggles in their communities and sometimes even their homes (like Squibs). I don\u2019t see why a wizard would be especially incentivized to kill a member of their family or community.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ud764",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Because hiding sucks? And I said at the very least it doesn't make sense that they would hide. \n\nAlso we see that the muggles don't build their stuff. It seems to me muggle society and wizard society are mostly separate.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ucv6h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uenix",
                    "author": "NotMyBestMistake",
                    "body": "So, ignoring that the world of Harry Potter has never actually made much sense, there's just not really a reason to wipe out all the muggles? Wizards literally live in their own isolated spaces where they don't seem to even want to develop or grow as a society. They're not even really neighbors to muggles, they all teleport to some undisclosed hermitage that no muggle can ever reach.\n\nAs to why society's never acknowledge them, they did? Maybe this is some deep, incomprehensible Jowling lore, but a lot of real societies had wizards and witches and shamans and astrologers and sorcerers and so on.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ug2up",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "Okay but this is an element of the story that is fundamental to telling it, so it's pointless to argue. The reason that the harry potter world is able to coexist and hide from muggles is because those are necessary elements in a story about a secret magic boarding school existing in modern times",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ugk1p",
                    "author": "polyvinylchl0rid",
                    "body": "Not a potterhead so maybe this is debunked somewhere. But i look at it similar to the prime directive from star trek.\n\nWizards arent hiding out for fear or anything like that. But to protect muggles and allow them to live a normal life. I could easile immagine muggles would be second class citizens in a society where they coexist with wizards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ugq93",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "It'd hard to believe people would be this nice. Like a five percent of dick heads I think would be enough to change the world",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ugk1p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uipvc",
                    "author": "Opening_Tell9388",
                    "body": "Idk. A .357 is still a fucking .357. I can up and blow away a few wizards before they twirl their stick.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uivlb",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "What if they walk around with protection spells. Then after that you'd be dead. And as I said pre guns you'd be powerless",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uipvc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ukjst",
                    "author": "Elderberry_Horror",
                    "body": "I think there are a few factors that are in play for wizards to have gone into hiding and to remain hidden. The main ones would be:\n\n1) population sizes - while we don't get exact figures for the size of the population I would estimate the ratio of wizards/witches to be about 1 witch or wizard for each 3000-5000 muggles. If you take this sort of ratio is means that in the middle ages the wizarding population in England might have only been 500 or less across the entire country vs a muggle population of \\~2 million. These 500 don't necessarily know each other, are spread out most likely living as small family units within muggle populations. \n\n2) Wizards have become more powerful over time. With wizards being mostly small family units they tended to be home-schooled which limits the development and spreading of magic. This is why the founding of Hogwarts and the other wizarding schools is so groundbreaking. By bringing together the future of the wizarding world in one place you allow magic learning to spread with wizards and witches learning from each other including students being educated by the smartest witches and wizards around. \n\nAs a note, the small population sizes and the strength of wizards to muggles is shown by the disagreement within the Hogwarts founders. They have to convince parents to let their children be taught in a wizarding school which if it was ever to be found by muggles would be a massive target. Especially at the beginning where you are talking 4 teachers with a couple of dozen students.  This is likely one of the reasons Slytherin didn't want to teach muggleborns, because they were the most likely security risk and most likely to result in a muggle army/mob attempting to breach the school and kill the students (BTW a basilisk would be really helpful in defending against an army). \n\nThese factors combined meant you had small family units spread out with limited magical ability. If everyone in the village/town knew you were magical that was putting a massive target on you and your families heads. This incentives hiding because even if you were to fight and defend yourself, killing a bunch of muggles, this would just create more hate and you and your entire family would be killed by sheer numbers. \n\nNow why would they have to hide and not live in harmony? Because people hate/fear those who are different. There are also some who would try and force the wizards/witches to work for them. You can see this throughout human history.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ul5wg",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Good on you for actually running the numbers. !delta",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ukjst"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ukxv8",
                    "author": "redditordeaditor6789",
                    "body": "I think it was important for kids reading it to be able to think this world secretly was happening, than giving a realistic reason for why it had to be hidden. I think it was part of what hooked a lot of readers in. That it didn't take place in a fully made up fantasy world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uo14z",
                    "author": "future_shoes",
                    "body": "The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997.  Cell phone cameras did not exist.  The Internet was around but not widely used by the average person.  Tabloid journals regularly printed outlandish stories about unsubstantiated super natural events which people dismissed as fiction.\n\nIn that time period it is much more likely that a relatively small population of wizards could hide from society at large.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0usvcr",
                    "author": "NevadaCynic",
                    "body": "The only difference between that world in this world is the crazy kooks on AM radio would be right, most people still wouldn't believe them.\n\nWe have people in this world to claim magic is real. All the change it makes one specific brand of conspiracy theory real instead of all of them being fake.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ut1o4",
                    "author": "waterboy1321",
                    "body": "I believe the only time this is discussed in the books someone (maybe Hagrid) says that in the modern era they hide because the Muggles would always be asking them to fix their problems and give them stuff.\n\nIn the books, their magic isn\u2019t really that powerful that it can do all of that, so canonically, the vast majority of wizards super hiding because otherwise they would be constantly put upon by muggles. In fact, it could even get dangerous.\n\nTo illustrate this, imagine a person with a sick child sees a witch doing literal magic, but then that witch (who can do literal magic) tells the person that they can\u2019t cure their child\u2019s cancer. This would breed conspiracy theories (they\u2019re keeping all the magic to themselves!) and likely lead to attacks, and the average wizard can\u2019t stop bullets or resist a crowd of their wand is lost. Better just to hide.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uv76e",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "That's true. I'm just wondering how powerful most wizards and witches are. Can they just accio the swords or whatever?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ut1o4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uukyd",
                    "author": "Dubbleedge",
                    "body": "If you're looking for plot consistent or reason in the harry potter books, you're gunna have a bad time. Don't get me wrong, I loved them as a kid, but they're very poorly written with holes bigger than countries.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vk5g7",
                    "author": "Lord_Maynard23",
                    "body": "There was already a muggle war. The muggles destroyed the Wizarding world and forced them into hiding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w73jz",
                    "author": "Malice_n_Flames",
                    "body": "What\u2019s a muggle?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0we1fz",
                    "author": "TAMILIANPSYCHO",
                    "body": "If they existed in real life they'd manipulate things from behind the scenes to extract influence and power without revealing themselves. Hell, there are occult groups that do the same exact thing without having quite the same explosive magic of hp\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choi_Soon-sil",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wfs91",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "The Wizarding World has the same problem the Muggle world does: you discount for the number of idiots. If the wizards tried to be in plain sight or to take over the earth, either way someone would mess it up.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x0egj",
                    "author": "metallee98",
                    "body": "Coexisting and not hiding are very different things. People hate anything that's different than them. So the end state of not hiding is either the eradication of non magic humans or the eradication of magic humans. Like you cant tell me that normal humans wouldnt get bloodthirsty over people that basically have super powers including mind control, flying, summoning, telekinesis, and a bunch of elemental powers. Like the mind control spell alone would cause paranoia to go through the roof. And hiding benefits the magic people too. They basically get access to all the good things about modern society. Coexisting is probably impossible. But I imagine if the world found out and didnt turn into anarchy we would be scooping em up into the military industrial complex to make some kind of super murder spells or something.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xm7fd",
                    "author": "zmz2",
                    "body": "Humans are really really good at killing people, and we have been for a long time. The statue of secrecy first came into being because of violence against wizardkind, and we\u2019ve only gotten better at killing since then. \n\nWizards may be powerful but they are massively outnumbered, and once we get to the industrial era our population explodes even more, we get so good at killing we can do it from miles away, and in the end we harnessed the power of the sun. Not sure how well even the strongest protection spell would stand up to a thermonuclear weapon",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0y1um9",
                    "author": "Ambitious_Fan7767",
                    "body": "I read an interesting take orbmaybe i heard it.  It essentially looked at hermoine and how fucking miserable her parents must be.  They can work and study and train for years to do things she can do with the flick of a wrist, she will apparently outlive them by double, she exists in the real world and they exist in a world with kid gloves.  The worst looks she gets arent looks of hate but sadness and jealousy.  Wizards hide because what a hellscape for humans to realize they simply arent capable of wonders, these wonders exist but they simply arent for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10idjk",
                    "author": "Chillout422",
                    "body": "Wrong. \n\nThe wizards in harry potter are more Kin to Xmen mutants. Its genetic, they are actually physically stronger than regular humans and live longer. But if you arent born a wizard you cant use magic in that world. Meaning if they were exposed on a large scale theyd be persecuted. \n\nIts actually hinted at the fact they do indeed stay seperate because of a persecution when they were open in the middle ages.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13csai",
                    "author": "RazeSpear",
                    "body": "Could partly be a compromise between the Pureblood Elitists and everybody else.\n\nWithout the Statute of Secrecy, in their minds, they either have to subjugate the muggles or integrate with them.\n\nIf Draco's friends at Hogwarts entertain muggles with magic,",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13dgap",
                    "author": "RazeSpear",
                    "body": "Could partly be a compromise between the Pureblood Elitists and everybody else.\n\nWithout the Statute of Secrecy, in their minds, they either have to subjugate the muggles or integrate with them.\n\nIf Draco's classmates at Hogwarts entertain muggles with magic on their summer breaks, Draco might be invited along, see that their interactions are harmless, make muggle friends, develop a crush even. It's enough to make a Death Eater queasy.\n\nBut with the Weasleys and Longbottoms of their world ready to stand up should the Muggles be threatened, their options are Civil War or politics. Thus the Malfoys and other Pureblood families use their vast reserves of gold to keep themselves away, for fear of having a half-blood grandchild.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1kzjo0",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": "Is the assumption that wizards can coexist with muggles based solely on their magical power, ignoring the complexity of social, cultural, and psychological factors? Do you think magical abilities necessarily translate to societal dominance?\n\nIf brainwashing muggles is \"easy,\" does that imply ethical acceptability? What's to prevent a society built on such coercion from eventually imploding?\n\nShould the rarity of figures like Grindelwald in wizarding history be seen as an anomaly, or as evidence of a stable, self-regulating community? Are you assuming that magical communities are inherently more prone to radicalization than non-magical ones?\n\nIs the lack of historical accounts of wizards wiping out muggle populations indicative of restraint or something else? Could it be that wizards value a harmonious coexistence more than you give them credit for?\n\nIf wizards and muggles have coexisted secretly for centuries, what makes you so certain that the secret wouldn't hold in today's world? Have you considered that the wizarding world might have means to remain concealed that you've overlooked?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16k96cz",
                "author": "silveryfeather208",
                "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0v5ba7",
                "author": "kylezdoherty",
                "body": "In the past, they probably didn't hide. Many ancient cultures had \"gods\" as heads of state. Egypt, Mesopotamia, China, Greece, Maya all had pantheons of God's and priests and shamans of smaller tribes that were the ruling class. Who's to say these weren't all wizards and witches? Most of mythology is full of magic and mythological creatures that we find in Harry Potter are real. Sphinx, dragons, leprechauns, basilisk. \n\nIt may not have been until the invention of guns and when revolutions started happening that wizards had to go into hiding. \n\nIf you look at all the magic and gods and creatures throughout mythology and history and apply the harry potter universe to it wizards were always around.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16k96cz"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0vi6ci",
                "author": "silveryfeather208",
                "body": "How could we forget them so quickly ? \n\nBut !delta it makes sense.",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0v5ba7"
            },
            {
                "id": "k0vi8mi",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/kylezdoherty ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/kylezdoherty)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k0vi6ci"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ucv6h",
                    "author": "parishilton2",
                    "body": "Muggles build a lot of things that wizards rely on. Roads, houses, bridges. And wizards live with Muggles in their communities and sometimes even their homes (like Squibs). I don\u2019t see why a wizard would be especially incentivized to kill a member of their family or community.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ud764",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Because hiding sucks? And I said at the very least it doesn't make sense that they would hide. \n\nAlso we see that the muggles don't build their stuff. It seems to me muggle society and wizard society are mostly separate.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ucv6h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uenix",
                    "author": "NotMyBestMistake",
                    "body": "So, ignoring that the world of Harry Potter has never actually made much sense, there's just not really a reason to wipe out all the muggles? Wizards literally live in their own isolated spaces where they don't seem to even want to develop or grow as a society. They're not even really neighbors to muggles, they all teleport to some undisclosed hermitage that no muggle can ever reach.\n\nAs to why society's never acknowledge them, they did? Maybe this is some deep, incomprehensible Jowling lore, but a lot of real societies had wizards and witches and shamans and astrologers and sorcerers and so on.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ug2up",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "Okay but this is an element of the story that is fundamental to telling it, so it's pointless to argue. The reason that the harry potter world is able to coexist and hide from muggles is because those are necessary elements in a story about a secret magic boarding school existing in modern times",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ugk1p",
                    "author": "polyvinylchl0rid",
                    "body": "Not a potterhead so maybe this is debunked somewhere. But i look at it similar to the prime directive from star trek.\n\nWizards arent hiding out for fear or anything like that. But to protect muggles and allow them to live a normal life. I could easile immagine muggles would be second class citizens in a society where they coexist with wizards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ugq93",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "It'd hard to believe people would be this nice. Like a five percent of dick heads I think would be enough to change the world",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ugk1p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uipvc",
                    "author": "Opening_Tell9388",
                    "body": "Idk. A .357 is still a fucking .357. I can up and blow away a few wizards before they twirl their stick.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uivlb",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "What if they walk around with protection spells. Then after that you'd be dead. And as I said pre guns you'd be powerless",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0uipvc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ukjst",
                    "author": "Elderberry_Horror",
                    "body": "I think there are a few factors that are in play for wizards to have gone into hiding and to remain hidden. The main ones would be:\n\n1) population sizes - while we don't get exact figures for the size of the population I would estimate the ratio of wizards/witches to be about 1 witch or wizard for each 3000-5000 muggles. If you take this sort of ratio is means that in the middle ages the wizarding population in England might have only been 500 or less across the entire country vs a muggle population of \\~2 million. These 500 don't necessarily know each other, are spread out most likely living as small family units within muggle populations. \n\n2) Wizards have become more powerful over time. With wizards being mostly small family units they tended to be home-schooled which limits the development and spreading of magic. This is why the founding of Hogwarts and the other wizarding schools is so groundbreaking. By bringing together the future of the wizarding world in one place you allow magic learning to spread with wizards and witches learning from each other including students being educated by the smartest witches and wizards around. \n\nAs a note, the small population sizes and the strength of wizards to muggles is shown by the disagreement within the Hogwarts founders. They have to convince parents to let their children be taught in a wizarding school which if it was ever to be found by muggles would be a massive target. Especially at the beginning where you are talking 4 teachers with a couple of dozen students.  This is likely one of the reasons Slytherin didn't want to teach muggleborns, because they were the most likely security risk and most likely to result in a muggle army/mob attempting to breach the school and kill the students (BTW a basilisk would be really helpful in defending against an army). \n\nThese factors combined meant you had small family units spread out with limited magical ability. If everyone in the village/town knew you were magical that was putting a massive target on you and your families heads. This incentives hiding because even if you were to fight and defend yourself, killing a bunch of muggles, this would just create more hate and you and your entire family would be killed by sheer numbers. \n\nNow why would they have to hide and not live in harmony? Because people hate/fear those who are different. There are also some who would try and force the wizards/witches to work for them. You can see this throughout human history.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ul5wg",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Good on you for actually running the numbers. !delta",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ukjst"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ukxv8",
                    "author": "redditordeaditor6789",
                    "body": "I think it was important for kids reading it to be able to think this world secretly was happening, than giving a realistic reason for why it had to be hidden. I think it was part of what hooked a lot of readers in. That it didn't take place in a fully made up fantasy world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uo14z",
                    "author": "future_shoes",
                    "body": "The first Harry Potter book was published in 1997.  Cell phone cameras did not exist.  The Internet was around but not widely used by the average person.  Tabloid journals regularly printed outlandish stories about unsubstantiated super natural events which people dismissed as fiction.\n\nIn that time period it is much more likely that a relatively small population of wizards could hide from society at large.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0usvcr",
                    "author": "NevadaCynic",
                    "body": "The only difference between that world in this world is the crazy kooks on AM radio would be right, most people still wouldn't believe them.\n\nWe have people in this world to claim magic is real. All the change it makes one specific brand of conspiracy theory real instead of all of them being fake.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0ut1o4",
                    "author": "waterboy1321",
                    "body": "I believe the only time this is discussed in the books someone (maybe Hagrid) says that in the modern era they hide because the Muggles would always be asking them to fix their problems and give them stuff.\n\nIn the books, their magic isn\u2019t really that powerful that it can do all of that, so canonically, the vast majority of wizards super hiding because otherwise they would be constantly put upon by muggles. In fact, it could even get dangerous.\n\nTo illustrate this, imagine a person with a sick child sees a witch doing literal magic, but then that witch (who can do literal magic) tells the person that they can\u2019t cure their child\u2019s cancer. This would breed conspiracy theories (they\u2019re keeping all the magic to themselves!) and likely lead to attacks, and the average wizard can\u2019t stop bullets or resist a crowd of their wand is lost. Better just to hide.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uv76e",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "That's true. I'm just wondering how powerful most wizards and witches are. Can they just accio the swords or whatever?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k0ut1o4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0uukyd",
                    "author": "Dubbleedge",
                    "body": "If you're looking for plot consistent or reason in the harry potter books, you're gunna have a bad time. Don't get me wrong, I loved them as a kid, but they're very poorly written with holes bigger than countries.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0vk5g7",
                    "author": "Lord_Maynard23",
                    "body": "There was already a muggle war. The muggles destroyed the Wizarding world and forced them into hiding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0w73jz",
                    "author": "Malice_n_Flames",
                    "body": "What\u2019s a muggle?",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0we1fz",
                    "author": "TAMILIANPSYCHO",
                    "body": "If they existed in real life they'd manipulate things from behind the scenes to extract influence and power without revealing themselves. Hell, there are occult groups that do the same exact thing without having quite the same explosive magic of hp\n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choi_Soon-sil",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0wfs91",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "The Wizarding World has the same problem the Muggle world does: you discount for the number of idiots. If the wizards tried to be in plain sight or to take over the earth, either way someone would mess it up.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0x0egj",
                    "author": "metallee98",
                    "body": "Coexisting and not hiding are very different things. People hate anything that's different than them. So the end state of not hiding is either the eradication of non magic humans or the eradication of magic humans. Like you cant tell me that normal humans wouldnt get bloodthirsty over people that basically have super powers including mind control, flying, summoning, telekinesis, and a bunch of elemental powers. Like the mind control spell alone would cause paranoia to go through the roof. And hiding benefits the magic people too. They basically get access to all the good things about modern society. Coexisting is probably impossible. But I imagine if the world found out and didnt turn into anarchy we would be scooping em up into the military industrial complex to make some kind of super murder spells or something.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0xm7fd",
                    "author": "zmz2",
                    "body": "Humans are really really good at killing people, and we have been for a long time. The statue of secrecy first came into being because of violence against wizardkind, and we\u2019ve only gotten better at killing since then. \n\nWizards may be powerful but they are massively outnumbered, and once we get to the industrial era our population explodes even more, we get so good at killing we can do it from miles away, and in the end we harnessed the power of the sun. Not sure how well even the strongest protection spell would stand up to a thermonuclear weapon",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k0y1um9",
                    "author": "Ambitious_Fan7767",
                    "body": "I read an interesting take orbmaybe i heard it.  It essentially looked at hermoine and how fucking miserable her parents must be.  They can work and study and train for years to do things she can do with the flick of a wrist, she will apparently outlive them by double, she exists in the real world and they exist in a world with kid gloves.  The worst looks she gets arent looks of hate but sadness and jealousy.  Wizards hide because what a hellscape for humans to realize they simply arent capable of wonders, these wonders exist but they simply arent for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k10idjk",
                    "author": "Chillout422",
                    "body": "Wrong. \n\nThe wizards in harry potter are more Kin to Xmen mutants. Its genetic, they are actually physically stronger than regular humans and live longer. But if you arent born a wizard you cant use magic in that world. Meaning if they were exposed on a large scale theyd be persecuted. \n\nIts actually hinted at the fact they do indeed stay seperate because of a persecution when they were open in the middle ages.",
                    "date": "2023-09-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13csai",
                    "author": "RazeSpear",
                    "body": "Could partly be a compromise between the Pureblood Elitists and everybody else.\n\nWithout the Statute of Secrecy, in their minds, they either have to subjugate the muggles or integrate with them.\n\nIf Draco's friends at Hogwarts entertain muggles with magic,",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k13dgap",
                    "author": "RazeSpear",
                    "body": "Could partly be a compromise between the Pureblood Elitists and everybody else.\n\nWithout the Statute of Secrecy, in their minds, they either have to subjugate the muggles or integrate with them.\n\nIf Draco's classmates at Hogwarts entertain muggles with magic on their summer breaks, Draco might be invited along, see that their interactions are harmless, make muggle friends, develop a crush even. It's enough to make a Death Eater queasy.\n\nBut with the Weasleys and Longbottoms of their world ready to stand up should the Muggles be threatened, their options are Civil War or politics. Thus the Malfoys and other Pureblood families use their vast reserves of gold to keep themselves away, for fear of having a half-blood grandchild.",
                    "date": "2023-09-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16k96cz",
                    "author": "silveryfeather208",
                    "body": "Yeah my previous post kind of got me thinking too. I also watched the recent harry potter on Netflix. \n\nI know people say other wizards and witches might keep each other in check but I feel it doesn't make sense it hasn't happened earlier. \n\nIts pretty easy to just brain wash the muggles into at least knowing they exist and leaving them alone. \n\nMuggles did not have guns for the longest time. All they had is swords. And sure witches and wizards are not immune to it. But enough spells etc can make them impenetrable. \n\nI just don't know how many people wouldn't be like Grindelwald. Its weird there aren't more of him. I don't support it but I feel there'd be a lot more that would just casually wipe out groups. Humans already do it. \n\nLike for example why didn't the wizarding world of say, Korea wipe out their smuggle population. Again I'm talking about like 12th century Korea. Or joseon era. Or the tang Chinese. Just feels there's lots to explore here \n\nOr why hasn't there ever been a society that acknowledged them\n\nI feel in this world if they really existed wed know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: wizards in harry potter would be able to coexist or at least not hide from muggles, given how powerful they are",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16k96cz/cmv_wizards_in_harry_potter_would_be_able_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1kzjo0",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": "Is the assumption that wizards can coexist with muggles based solely on their magical power, ignoring the complexity of social, cultural, and psychological factors? Do you think magical abilities necessarily translate to societal dominance?\n\nIf brainwashing muggles is \"easy,\" does that imply ethical acceptability? What's to prevent a society built on such coercion from eventually imploding?\n\nShould the rarity of figures like Grindelwald in wizarding history be seen as an anomaly, or as evidence of a stable, self-regulating community? Are you assuming that magical communities are inherently more prone to radicalization than non-magical ones?\n\nIs the lack of historical accounts of wizards wiping out muggle populations indicative of restraint or something else? Could it be that wizards value a harmonious coexistence more than you give them credit for?\n\nIf wizards and muggles have coexisted secretly for centuries, what makes you so certain that the secret wouldn't hold in today's world? Have you considered that the wizarding world might have means to remain concealed that you've overlooked?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16k96cz"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16os7ne",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                "date": "2023-09-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1nqml7",
                "author": "jigglealltheway",
                "body": "Thing I find more confusing about this plot point is that Miguel says Miles should never have been Spider-Man in the first place (in fact, his universe already had a Peter Parker Spider-Man).\n\nIn which case, does he need a captain close to him to die? It\u2019s a \u201ccanon event\u201d but shouldn\u2019t it have happened to the deceased Spider-Man of his universe? If Miles doesn\u2019t count, then he shouldn\u2019t need to have canon events.",
                "date": "2023-09-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16os7ne"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1nsn5u",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "\u2206\n\nThis is the only good arugment I've seen for this. But there's still a problem: Miles does not bring this up at all. He's still willing to roll the dice and put literally EVERYONE in jeopardy for no other reason than his own happiness.",
                "date": "2023-09-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1nqml7"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1nsp17",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jigglealltheway ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jigglealltheway)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1nsn5u"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mjet8",
                    "author": "Vesurel",
                    "body": "How do we know that cannon events being disrupted is why there's issues?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mkif9",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Because it happened twice before. \n\nMiguel's universe, and in Pavitr Prabhakar's universe.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mjet8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mm4r3",
                    "author": "CootysRat_Semen",
                    "body": "The problem is that he is just wrong. \n\nHis existence breaks the canon. So does Gwen\u2019s.  \n\nThe whole point is that there is no Canon.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1n9e4n",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Prabhakar's universe and Miguel's seem to dispute this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mm4r3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mmnwz",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": ">Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous danger of disrupting a canon event. \n\nThe main problem with this is he doesn't seem to actually know the mechanism. He doesn't know why this happens, or if will always happen the same way, or what constitutes a canon event beyond seeing some patterns in spider stories. In the case of Miles specifically, it is not known if canon events affect him the same way, as he is himself an anomaly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mnjwq",
                    "author": "TSN09",
                    "body": "The whole point is not to make the wrong choice in the \"Trolley problem\" it's that this is not the trolley problem.\n\nThe point is that good guys don't make compromises like that, spider man (what he should stand for) is to not leave a guy behind, it's about doing good no matter the odds. That Spiderman 2099 has failed to be a true spiderman because he has given up into this role of \"accountant\" where he's satisfied with tons of people suffering just because \"the numbers are better\"\n\nRemember in the first Tobey movie when Green Goblin drops a cable car full of children and Mary Jane? This is a scaled down version of your CMV. If spiderman had the reasoning you are using he simply would've let MJ die, but he decided to save everyone no matter what, it's not about being \"smart\" it's about deciding that you will do something and doing it. And spiderman will never decide to just let people die.\n\nJust because you increase the scale and make it a full dimension with unknowable causes and mechanisms doesn't change who spiderman should be, he's the guy who will save everyone, not because he knows he can, because he will try.\n\nSpiderman 2099 isn't morally evil for letting people die for the sake of trillions, but the whole point is that he's morally decrepit because he has decided to give up, he decided to not try and solve the issue and just play game manager while letting people die. And even if you don't dislike that. **HE FAILED AS SPIDERMAN.**",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mwofg",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> The point is that good guys don't make compromises like that,\n\nThan that's a stupid, stupid message. If this is the real meaning of what it means to be spiderman, than Spiderman is a stupid story that peddles childish understandings of right and wrong.\n\n>it's about doing good no matter the odds.\n\nPreventing an entire dimension from dying is good. If Spiderman's writers disagree than they are idiots.\n\n>Remember in the first Tobey movie when Green Goblin drops a cable car full of children and Mary Jane?\n\ndifferent situation: It WAS possible to save both. In this case, it's simply not.\n\nIf what you are saying is right, than this is the only major flaw with this incredible movie. The writers wanted to tell a story about the necessity to reject compromise, but they picked a situation where refusing to compromise is destructive and suicidal.\n\n> HE FAILED AS SPIDERMAN.\n\nThan spiderman is an idiot and he should fail.\n\nPeter Poker said it really well: The hardest part about this job is you cannot save everyone.\n\nI know comics are made for children, but these are stories that are trying to say genuine things about the human condition. And the idea of 'never compromise' is stupid. \n\nSometimes it is correct to not compromise - such as the British not negotiating with Germany after France's defeat.\n\nBut sometimes its requried - Medical disasters are a perfect example, given the need for triage.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mnjwq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mpftx",
                    "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby",
                    "body": ">Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nWell the key issue is that Miguel doesn't actually know if these universes were destroyed by the disruption of a canon event. That's his pet theory, but there are plenty of alternate explanations for why these universes were destroyed.\n\nFor example, the universe Miguel watched collapse wasn't his own. We've seen that people glitch out when they go to universes that aren't their own. It's possible that the issue isn't that Miguel wasn't following the canon, but rather that he was living in another universe for an extended period of time.\n\nAnd if that's the case, then Miguel is being extremely reckless with his whole spider society project. For all we know, his actions might be contributing to the impending collapse of his own universe. But Miguel doesn't seem to be considering this as a possibility.\n\nAs for the destruction of Pavitir Prabhakar's universe, is that the doing of Miles or is that the doing of the Spot? The Spot absorbed the power of a particle collider. That seems like an action that has far more ramifications for the stability of a universe, than a cop not dying when he was supposed to.\n\nAnd really, how can Capt. Stacy's death at that moment be considered a canon event when that event would never have happened without the Spot coming in from another universe? And the Spot wouldn't be there in that universe if it wasn't for Miles, right? So how can Miles rescuing  Capt. Stacy be considered canon-breaking,  if Capt. Stacy was only in danger because of Miles prior actions?\n\nThe whole canon event theory is flimsy, way too flimsy to knowingly condemn a man to death on. Miguel doesn't have the evidence to show this trolley problem even exists before making decisions to let people die for \"the greater good.\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mvnlj",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "So the problem with this response is that the disruption of canon events is the best explanation for collapsing universes. We've seen two collapsing dimensions collapse AFTER a canon event.\n\nTHAT is the commonality between Miguel's 2nd universe, and Prabhakar's universe. There is no reason given to suggest that Miguel's 2nd universe AND Prabhakar collapsed for the reasons  you gave. It is I admit not *Impossible* for you to be wrong, but there is little reason to think you are actually correct.\n\nI'll use an example: Say you and I are roommates, and tues night we eat sushi, and Wed morning we are sick with the same symptoms.\n\nNow let's say you hung out in your room the night before, and I went for a run. It is possible that you got sick from something in your room, and I caught something when out on my run. \n\nBut because we share the same symptoms (puking, etc) and we both ate sushi, it is **likely** that we are sick because we ate some bad sushi.\n\nIn this case, Miguel and Prabhakar's universe are you and I, and the breaking of canon events is the sushi we both ate. \n\n> The Spot absorbed the power of a particle collider. That seems like an action that has far more ramifications for the stability of a universe, than a cop not dying when he was supposed to.\n\nI disagree. First, we see the computer specifically say: A canon event has been disrupted. The same computer that has reliable knowledge of all the different dimensions.\n\nSecond: In *isolation* perhaps it might seem more significant, but consider this: EVERY spiderverse seems to have a Dead cop/father figure in it. There's a scene where we just see a line of many, many dead cops/father figures. Not every universe has a collider. This suggest to me that Spiderman loosing a cop/father is a *fundamental* element of each world.\n\nIn fact, that would fit the literal philosophical definition of 'necessary' quite nicely. That being something that is true in all possible worlds.\n\nIf the death of a cop/father is a necessary element of Spiderman, than it means that in all possible worlds Spiderman loses a father/cop. Therefore the removal of a 'necessary' component seems to me to be a good reason for something to collapse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mpftx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mphac",
                    "author": "RodeoBob",
                    "body": "Across the Spiderverse isn't \"the Trolley Problem\".\n\nIt's the [Kobayashi Maru](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru). It's the no-win situation, where you **must** make a choice between one of two things. That theme shows up over & over in the film, as Miles is *repeatedly* told by different characters in different situations that he has to make a choice between two things, and he keeps say \"No, I can do/have both!\" \n\nMiguel (and most of the Spider-people) accept the framework of \"you have to choose between two things in a no-win situation\", but Miles *doesn't*, which is one of the things that makes him different.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mtxpp",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">It's the no-win situation\n\nBut there is a win. Preventing the entire dimension from dying is a pretty good thing\n\n>but Miles doesn't, which is one of the things that makes him different.\n\nAnd that could be great, if it was shown as a flaw. As it stands, the music ques/framing all make the audience want to root FOR miles against that mean old vampire spiderman.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mphac"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mpzbo",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "The themes of the movie(even though it was only part one)are very clear about the conclusion of whether this chrachter will be right. \n\nMiles and gwen(this applies to most Spiderman comic even the MCU version with Peter and the avengers has this quality)is often related to being an outsider who wants to find a community that understand them which happens to both of them in the movie but miles is rejected by Miguel and asserts that he will be in control of his own destiny(which feel like meta community on how shitty people were to this chrachter was introduced despite the endless version of Spiderman that have already exists) and gwen realises her longing for people who understands her have allowed her to be taken advantage of. It would be strange if both chrachters learn to have faith in themselves and are proven wrong in the next movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mtp74",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> The themes of the movie(even though it was only part one)are very clear about the conclusion of whether this chrachter will be right.\n\nOf course they are. And I'm saying that the writers have given a bad justification for us to believe in Miles. The only reason we as an audience believe in him is due to non-evidence based feels over reals. Such as music/framing ques that tell us that \"No, Miguel is being a big meanie here\"\n\n>and gwen realises her longing for people who understands her have allowed her to be taken advantage of. \n\nIs preventing the death of every single person in your dimension being 'taken advatage off?'\n\nAnd don't forget that Gwen ASKED to join  the Spiderverse team, at Miguel's objections. Gwen was not 'used' by the spiderverse team. She signed up, and then abandoned the morally correct thing to do because her vision is clouded by her emotional connection with miles.\n\n> It would be strange if both chrachters learn to have faith in themselves and are proven wrong in the next movie that would very strange set up and pay off.\n\nIt would be. But it would also be correct, morally speaking even though it wouldn't be narratively speaking.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mpzbo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1msi25",
                    "author": "mitchade",
                    "body": "Miguel isn\u2019t right but for different reasons. Miguel said it himself: Miles isn\u2019t supposed to be Spider-Man. The whole thing was an accident. \n\nPart of my reasoning is a prediction for the third movie. Since Miles isn\u2019t supposed to be Spider-Man, he can save his dad without consequence. \n\nThat being said, Miguel would be right about any other cannon event being changed. Miles isn\u2019t a cannon Spider-Man, though, and therefore his fathers death isn\u2019t/wouldn\u2019t be a cannon event.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1msv28",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "You might be right, but none of that changes the fact that, with the info available. Given we can only hold the characters accoutnable for what they could possibly know:\n\nThat Miguel is right.\n\nAnd Miles is being selfish.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1msi25"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mudw7",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "Assuming he's truthful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mvjvr",
                    "author": "BelleColibri",
                    "body": "The problem is that we (and Miguel) understand very little about how the multiverse and canon events work. It\u2019s just unbelievable that it works the way he thinks it does. Miles\u2019 whole situation makes no sense in the \u201ccanon event\u201d narrative, he\u2019s not a \u201creal\u201d Spider-Man.\n\nSo Miguel needs to be more humble about his understanding and let people do things that seem *obviously* good.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mxhl2",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "But we have two examples where disrupting canon events causes catastrophic death tolls. In that case, shouldn't we be VERY careful about this, even if we don't understand the process?\n\nWhat gives Miles the right to roll those dice and potentially kill ever single person in his universe for himself?\n\nLet me ask you another question: What do you think Captain Morales would say about this? I personally think he's the kind of man who would be willing to risk his life to save even a *stranger*\n\nWhat would he think of Miles putting the risk of every single person in the world (incluidng his own mother) at risk just to save his father's life?\n\nI think Captain Miles would tell Miles that is wrong, and than let himself be killed by spot if that's what it would prevent.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mvjvr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nf70q",
                    "author": "TMO192837",
                    "body": "I think most answers here are on a similar page, but the main point is that we've established Myles was NOT canonically meant to become spiderman. Then, if Myles had not been doing spiderman things, spot would not have become spot. If spot didn't exist, nothing would've happened on Earth 50101 and there would be no threat to Myles' dad. So it seems a strange conclusion that Myles letting his dad die IS a canon event, when his dad is only in danger because Myles became spiderman, which itself was not a canon event. Inherently, everything Myles is doing since he became spiderman is against the canon. Either the concept of canon events is incorrect or Miguel is wrong about whether Myles was supposed to be spiderman.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ng4nu",
                    "author": "SteleUraniumBX",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think so . \n\nMost Spidermen are written not to do heroing for the sake of like king to help people, but more of a moral debt sorta deal. (IE, If you have the ability to help, but you don\u2019t? The consequences are on you).\nAnd this is unlike some characters like S&L or MAWS Clark Kent, who help because they likes to help.\n\n\nNot to mention, Miguel doesn\u2019t actually know. Only his actions collapsed a universe and his were so far out of the norm of what hes been preaching against. (Like, how is keeping someone alive when they \u201cshouldve\u201d died, equivalent To stepping into a reality where you don\u2019t exist anymore and attempting long term habitation?)",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ngrdz",
                    "author": "Xrath02",
                    "body": "(Warning: it's been a minute since I saw Across the Spiderverse, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy)\n\nMiles himself is a pretty big departure from the expected canon of both his own universe and the universe his spider came from, and neither of them have collapsed, so that's two examples that exist in direct opposition to Miguel's canon theory. Even if you don't count Miles' universe since he still seems to be going through certain canon events as an atypical spiderman, the universe his spider came from would certainly count as one that breaks canon. That universe doesn't even have a spiderman to go through canon events (at least to our knowledge), meaning that none of them can happen. Teleporting the spider to another universe should have already triggered a bunch of canon breaks and maybe a even a universal collapse, but instead the world just looks darker.\n\nI also don't think that Pavitr Prabhakar's universe is definitive evidence for Miguel's theory, given that the dimensional problems there could be attributed to Spot's influence, rather than Miles breaking a single canon event. \n\nMiguel's own experience might not even be definitively supporting his canon theory, though I don't think we really know enough to say much about that. Maybe it actually was the broken canon that triggered it's collapse, maybe Miguel's long-term stay in a foreign universe was the trigger, or maybe some guy pressed the wrong button on their local particle collider, and that had very bad outcomes for the rest of reality. We really just don't know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nhkr3",
                    "author": "Manowaffle",
                    "body": "The problem is that the world is full of people like Miguel who are utterly convinced of their worldview and who see any sacrifice as necessary. But that\u2019s the mentality of a doomsday cult: \u201cthe world will end unless we kill this innocent person. And since the world might end, there\u2019s no cost too great.\u201d\n\nBut as Miles points out, killing people based on the predictions of some algorithm is pretty messed up. And that\u2019s not just theoretical, for years the US military was killing people based on \u201csignature strikes\u201d which used pretty flimsy evidence to justify thousands of killings.\n\nMoreover, it\u2019s a critique about how society treats kids like Miles and his parents. The guidance counselor tries to make him and his family fit into a convenient stereotype, one that is totally unrepresentative of their lives. Peter, Gwen, Miguel, etc all insist that they know what\u2019s best for Miles, but it turns out they don\u2019t really know. And letting innocent people die for sure on the theory that something bad might happen is a really dangerous mentality.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nm0qp",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> The problem is that the world is full of people like Miguel who are utterly convinced of their worldview and who see any sacrifice as necessary\n\nBut Miguel is right. The world is also full of people who think that 'Killing people is always wrong! There is always another way!' These are the same people who would have let the nazis roll over all of europe and never fire a shot to stop them.\n\nJust because there's a lot of people who believe in a mystical 'third way' doesn't mean Miles is right here.\n\n>But as Miles points out, killing people based on the predictions of some algorithm is pretty messed up\n\nIt's not messed up. We've seen TWICE what happens when canon events are disrupted. \n\nWhat's messed up is letting the entire world die because of your own selfishness.\n\nI don't care what the guidance counselor says. And I actually don't give a shit what's right for Miles. I care about PREVENTING THE DEATH OF EVERY PERSON IN THIS DIMENSION.\n\nWhat's hard to understand about that? Miles and his happiness/family is immaterial when put against those odds.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nhkr3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nsbfb",
                    "author": "stolenfires",
                    "body": "Miguel's universe didn't collapse because he took the place of Dead!Miguel. It collapsed because he's the one who killed Dead!Miguel.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nssng",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "No he didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nsbfb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nt4ku",
                    "author": "Konfliction",
                    "body": "One small counter, him being big and scary as you put it isn\u2019t necessarily them implying that he\u2019s that and therefore evil. I think it\u2019s largely to imply how dissimilar he is to the concept of Spiderman. \n\nWe don\u2019t also know yet if there\u2019s truth to the idea of Miles saving his dad and that blowing up his universe. The very existence of a Miles that\u2019s basically Prowler because their universe has no Spiderman shows that just because something happens to a universe that isn\u2019t what\u2019s supposed to happen, Doesn\u2019t mean the universe implodes. \n\nI don\u2019t think we have proof yet that Miquel is even correct in the first place.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nv0um",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> I think it\u2019s largely to imply how dissimilar he is to the concept of Spiderman.\n\nI mean if that is the case he is a better spiderman. I'd much rather have Miguel looking after our world than Miles. Mile's is going to get people killed with his self-centeredness.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nt4ku"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nvypn",
                    "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
                    "body": "Have you ever watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead? Miguel\u2019s logical framework is unworkable. You can\u2019t have a system or fate mixed with chance. His theory of normal events, subject to free will and chance, and cannon events, subject to fate, inevitably leads to the cannon events no longer happening, even if through butterfly effect from the tiniest alteration. By his own logic, resisting Miles is futile. \n\nHe\u2019s trying to rationalize his own past losses, and has made a theory of the universe that falls apart at the slightest prodding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o12bc",
                    "author": "captcanuk",
                    "body": "Good comparison. Miguel effectively flipped a coin twice and noticed it was tails both times and decided that all coin flips must be tails.  Similar to a bin of balls you can\u2019t see and reach in to pull out a ball that could be red or black and decide that taking two red out means all are red.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nvypn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o1qhb",
                    "author": "Spiridor",
                    "body": "So.... just to make certain I understand what you're saying... you're asking for people to convince you that the main message of the movie is true?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o29t6",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Does the fact that it is the main message mean that it is correct?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1o1qhb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o1x6q",
                    "author": "themcos",
                    "body": "A little late to this party, but I think you need to separate two distinct concepts:\n\n- Is Miguel morally correct?\n\n- Is Miles morally correct / acting rationally / responsibly.\n\nBecause it seems like your argument is primarily that Miles is being reckless, which is reasonable if you take seriously Miguel's claims. And I even grant that in the context of the movie, Miguel's claims probably *should* be taken seriously, especially given the information available to Miles. I think it's absolutely fair to say that Miles is acting emotionally and not necessarily rationally, and that this is dangerous given the stakes.\n\n**But**, Miles being wrong doesn't make Miguel morally correct, because we don't even know of Miguel is telling the truth. If Miguel is *lying* about some aspect of the canon events, he's pretty obviously not morally correct.\n\nEven if he believes himself correct but is simply wrong, this calls into question what information he's basing his actions on, and if he's jumping to conclusions and aggressively policing the multiverse based on incomplete or suspect information, that also calls his judgment into question.\n\nI guess the way I'd put it is that regardless of your assessment of Miles, *Miguel* is only \"morally correct\" if you take everything he says as truth. We'll have to wait until part 2, but I'm a little skeptical of that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o3gob",
                    "author": "Scott7Sage",
                    "body": "I grant that Miguel has reason to believe he is correct. As you noted, he has seen this scenario play out (at least) twice with universe-ending results. Obviously, the movie is setting him up to be wrong, but based on his knowledge of the world his position is reasonable.\n\nBut Miles has *not* experienced the same things and cannot be judged by information available to Miguel (and thus to us as the audience) and not to him. From Miles\u2019 perspective, he has seen one universe threatened due to (what he is told) is the disruption of a canon event. He is *told* about Miguel\u2019s universe (but is presented with no concrete evidence to corroborate this story). And Miles has very little reason to implicitly trust Miguel (who, after all, has treated Miles with nothing but hostility and contempt throughout).\n\nIf I were Miles, I would not be willing to risk my loved ones\u2019 life based off a single event + an anecdote shared by a source of questionable trustworthiness, particularly when the circumstances surrounding the one scenario he had personally seen differed significantly from the circumstances of his own universe.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o3njh",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">  From Miles\u2019 perspective, he has seen one universe threatened due to (what he is told) is the disruption of a canon event.\n\nMiles has an entire society of spider people who back Miguel up. I don't need to have ever seen someone die of cancer to know that smoking is dangerous if the entire medical establishment tells me it is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1o3gob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o7n3x",
                    "author": "camelCasing",
                    "body": "Miguel is only in any kind of moral right if you accept as ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE FACT his assertion that disrupting certain events in a Spiderman's life will utterly annihilate their universe.\n\nNeither the audience nor the characters have been given tangible proof that this is the case. Miguel remains a fascist, even if he's motivated by (potentially unfounded) fear.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qpb3t",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">Miguel is only in any kind of moral right if you accept as ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE FACT his assertion that disrupting certain events in a Spiderman's life will utterly annihilate their universe.\n\nNo you don't. You just need to have better reasons than Mile's gives. And the argument Miles gives for his position is:\n\n**Nothing**\n\nYou are mistaken when you suggest we need to know with certainty that Miguel is correct. We almsot never have certainty in any of our conclusions. \n\nThat's how inductive reasoning works.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1o7n3x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ohs81",
                    "author": "chaos0310",
                    "body": "Doesn\u2019t Gwen existing and her dad still being alive throw the whole canon event thing into wack? She said it to miles. \u201cIn every other universe Gwen and spidey love each other. And in every other universe Gwen Stacey dies\u2026\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qjkjn",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> \u201cIn every other universe Gwen and spidey love each other. And in every other universe Gwen Stacey dies\u2026\n\nNo, she said bad things happen.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1ohs81"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1om7vw",
                    "author": "epc-_-1039",
                    "body": "The problem is that we have no evidence that Miguel's story is actually correct. Some of the very \"canon events\" he described do *not* happen to every Spiderman. For instance, he proclaimed very clearly that \"Uncle Ben has to die\" and yet there is no Uncle Ben, or equivalent character, for Miguel.\n\nI'm inclined to believe that he is not trustworthy and that his story about jumping through the multiverse, canon events, etc. is untrue. Therefore he is *not* morally correct because:\n\n1. He is lying about the entire setup;\n2. Since the entire setup is based on a falsehood, there can be no morally correct stance using that falsehood as the cornerstone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oncl1",
                    "author": "TheUltimatenerd05",
                    "body": "Thefilm makes it pretty obvious that Miguel's view on canon events is wrong.\n\nMiles shouldn't be spiderman he's a mistake that goes against the canon. but without Mils the villain of the film wouldn't exist so the canon event for one of the spidermen wouldn't have happened in the first place as the threat thaty would have killed the captain doesn't exist without Miles.\n\nMiguel has a conspiracy theory that doesn't have evidence to support it and has lots of obvious contradictions.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qhua5",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> Miles shouldn't be spiderman he's a mistake that goes against the canon.\n\nDisrupting canon events doesn't mean 'Nothing ever changes.' Canon events are specific events things that must happen.\n\nObviously Miles NOT being bitten was not a canon event.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1oncl1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1onqz9",
                    "author": "ILikeToJustReadHere",
                    "body": "If Miguel was right, universe 44 would have been destroyed, because it was denied its spider-man by having the spider ripped into Miles Universe.\n\nInstead,  the universe just didn't have its spiderman.\n\nWe see that the universe starts collapsing moments after the Canon event is stopped. But in Mile's world,  Spiderman's death doesn't result in the world collapsing. This is either because the universe knew a new Spiderman existed, Miles is a Canon Spiderman, or the Canon events of Spiderman are not required in order keep the universe alive. \n\nBut instead,  Miguel calls him an \"anomaly\".\n\nMiguel is right about Canon events destroying universes. He's wrong about what the Canon events are,  as they can be different for each universe,  as noted in the What Ifs.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oo0sb",
                    "author": "edingerc",
                    "body": "Might want to wait until you see the next movie.  I predict that Miles will save his father and his universe won't implode.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qhfe3",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I adress this in my post. You are correct.\n\nthat doesn't mean Miles isn't being extremely selfish here. I'm judging him based on the information avalaible to him at the time.\n\nI'm not using my meta knowledge of how movies tend to work out to justify Mile's actions, because that's knowledge Miles would never have.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1oo0sb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oo8p1",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\nLet's approach this with a simple calculus: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If we're weighing the life of Captain Morales against the lives of everyone in Miles's dimension, the math seems clear. But the moral complexity of this scenario isn't reducible to just numbers.\n\n>He's doing the above because if Miles does save his dear old dad, then everyone in Miles's dimension will die.\n\nThe assertion that everyone in Miles's dimension will die is based on knowledge from Miguel's experiences in other timelines. But relying solely on past experiences, no matter how consistent, doesn't necessarily determine the future. History, as you should be well aware, is filled with instances where patterns were disrupted by unforeseen events.\n\n>A) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nSentimentality and personal connections often blur our judgment. It's understandable why Miles would want to save his father. The question isn't whether it's justifiable from an emotional standpoint\u2014it clearly is\u2014but whether it's justifiable from a logical, moral standpoint.\n\n>B) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nAgain, this is based on Miguel's past experiences. It's an assumption, not an established fact. One could argue that every dimension has its own unique set of variables, and past experiences from one might not necessarily apply to another.\n\n>\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nHope and friendship, while powerful in narratives, don't serve as concrete solutions to tangible problems. However, discounting them entirely would be a mistake. History is littered with instances where hope and solidarity made the impossible possible. To argue otherwise would be to ignore significant portions of human achievement.\n\n>As of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish.\n\nMiles's actions might be driven by emotion, but it's necessary to consider the broader context. If you were in a similar situation, could you, with certainty, claim that you'd act differently? Emotion is an intrinsic part of human nature and often drives our most significant actions, for better or worse.\n\n>Because this isn't even a trolley problem. It's:\n\n>A) Either one person dies\n\n>or\n\n>B) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.\n\nThis is an oversimplification of a complex issue. The multiverse concept itself, as you rightly pointed out, is challenging to comprehend fully. To reduce it to a binary choice might not capture the entirety of the situation.\n\nMiguel's perspective is rooted in experience and perhaps a more utilitarian worldview, but it's important to acknowledge the multidimensionality (pun intended) of the issue. It's not just about saving one life versus many; it's about understanding the complexities of existence, the unpredictability of outcomes, and the human need to hold onto hope, even in the face of overwhelming odds.\n\nIf you had the power to alter events in the multiverse, would you act based solely on past experiences, or would you consider the possibility that each dimension, each decision, might yield different results? Would you not entertain the notion that the multiverse, by its very nature, defies predictability?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oq9yo",
                    "author": "PuzzleMeDo",
                    "body": "Should you murder one innocent if doing so will save the world?\n\nAccording to ethical calculus, yes. (According to virtue ethics, maybe not.)\n\nBut, in real life: If you ever believe that murdering an innocent person will save the world, it's probably because you've gone crazy and are suffering from delusions. The instinct that you should never murder innocent people is almost always correct.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qh7lf",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">But, in real life: If you ever believe that murdering an innocent person will save the world, it's probably because you've gone crazy and are suffering from delusions\n\nIn real life spider people wouldn't exist anyway. So... you've not really given answer. you've just shut down the conversation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1oq9yo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ouu6g",
                    "author": "EmilOfHerning",
                    "body": "O'Hara might be correct, given his available info, but that does not make Miles, our protagonist who we naturally side with, wrong.\nAre you familiar with Pascal's wizard? A man come up to you and claim to be a wizard who can produce infinite moral value, on the very specific conditions that you immediately hand over every single penny in your name. This one decision is so important, that it will ultimately render any other action committed by anyone ever meaningless in comparison. Should you do it, even if the chances of him speaking the truth are near zero? 0.00000000001 times infinity is still infinity.\n\nThis is essensially Miles' position, only O'Hara demands his life, not his money",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1p2ai4",
                    "author": "ReplyHappy",
                    "body": "I reckon in the 3rd movie Captain Morales will die",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1p59pp",
                    "author": "Whole-Recover-8911",
                    "body": "I'm gonna make up a term because I don't know how else to describe it: this is an issue of overused character plot inflation. \n\nWhen you have a character who becomes popular, in order to give that character something to do they start putting that character in larger and larger situations that are outside of their original world/skill set. \n\nFriendly neighborhood Spider-Man is a teenager who should be dealing with teenage problems. The spiderverse plot is like a bunch of janitors dealing with one problem on the Living Tribunal's to do list. \n\nThat's an exaggeration. \n\nBetter to say that this is a Reed Richards plot given to a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man that even Reed would have problems with, and he is, arguably, one of the smartest men in the Marvel universe.\n\nSpider people aren't dumb by any means but dealing accurately with multidimensional problems, while visually interesting, is not their thing so these holes show up that are bad plotting spackled over with good dramatic writing.\n\nI don't want to be like one of those people who can't enjoy watching the Hunger Games because they don't think that the system of government is in any way realistic or sustainable and I will continue enjoying the Spiderverse as entertainment but a lot of this speaks to the larger issue of all the Marvel comics characters not being under centralized control. When Aquaman starts acting like Batman because that's the one character you have in your palm and you don't really care about continuity then plot inflation will be an unfortunate side effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qh09u",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">  is not their thing so these holes show up that are bad plotting spackled over with good dramatic writing.\n\nProblem is, who are you to say it is not their thing? In a spiderverse of many spiderman, it stands to reason that some of them might in fact be brilliant theoretical physicists. Remember, Miles is gearing up to go to PRINCESTON at the start of this film. One of the most prestigious places to study.\n\nJust because Reed richard isn't here, doesn't mean that Miguel doesn't have brilliant spider people/AI working for him.\n\nAlso, i gotta disagree with you about the centralized control. There is no chance this movie would have happened if Spiderman was owned by the mouse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1p59pp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pduhn",
                    "author": "xraypowers",
                    "body": "Thank you for the spoiler alert. Deeply appreciated.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qfkun",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Of course. People who don't give spoiler warnings are dicks.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pduhn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pe3a9",
                    "author": "Psychologinut",
                    "body": "If you\u2019re not an idiot though, there\u2019s clearly other factors at play here. It seems pretty clear to me that Miguel O\u2019Hara is hiding something. Peter B. Parker even points out how \u201che\u2019s the only Spider-Man who isn\u2019t funny\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qfhmb",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I don't see that though. How is not being humorous mean he's hiding something?\n\nI just took that as Miguel is in a very deep amount of pain. His family died, and he watched a universe, and hence an unfathomable amount of people die because of his mistake.\n\nHe's traumatized and cynical. Nothing wrong with that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pe3a9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pe507",
                    "author": "Puzzleheaded_Bite867",
                    "body": "Everyone posting dissent with OP's opinion should stop. He will just argue with and condescend to you for not agreeing with him. Seriously why did you even post?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qf9z4",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">You are not open to having your view changed, \n\nYou should talk to the people who I gave delta's too.\n\nI don't get people like you: If I do anything other than roll over and accept arguments (that have poor reasoning behind them) I'm suddenly unreasonable.\n\nFine, next time  a Nigerien prince emails me and asks for my credit card information so he can wire me his forturne I should just accept it right? Because if I don't it means I'm unwilling to have my mind change?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pe507"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1phz34",
                    "author": "zonic_squared",
                    "body": "The problem with this entire argument that it only works if Miguel is correct in what is a canon event the consequences with them. And the movie is pretty cut and dry on him not be completely correct. \n\nUsing Mumbattan as an example is another problem, because the hole in the world doesn't open after Singh is saved. It opens after Spot absorbs the collider. If Singh didn't create the hole, why would him dying stop it?\n\nUniverse 42 and 1610B existence also poke holes in his argument. 67 also does, but it's impossible for the cast to know this until the end. Let alone, Mayday existing. And his own caused collapse is visibly different from anything else we've seen in the movie, caused under significantly different circumstances that he's trying to prevent.\n\nMiguel's entire arc is a metanarrative approach on the more militant Spider-man fanbase. His obsession with canon events and the immediate disapproval of Mile being a real Spider-man could have been taken directly from some chud on Twitter and not looked out of place.\n\nSpider-verse questions on whether or not they have to do things the same as what came before. If Miguel was right, then this entire theme would be tossed out the window.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pu2k9",
                    "author": "Dr_Quiet_Time",
                    "body": "I think so too but he got WAY too personal towards Miles. He didn\u2019t need to. Telling him he doesn\u2019t belong as if he chose intentionally to get bitten by a spider that came to his universe. \n\nThere\u2019s some projection happening on Miguel\u2019s side for sure. I feel like there could have been a more straight forward less emotional way it could have been done. But Miguel acted like it was a personal slight against him. \n\nThis is why l loved Hobie. Because he could see everyone was treating Miles like the red headed step child and didn\u2019t go along with it. He acted against it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qc4nq",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">I think so too but he got WAY too personal towards Miles.\n\nIs that really a big deal? This guy is about to put everyone's lives in jeopardy for his own selfish happiness. When someone is being that careless with the lives of others 'being nice to them' isn't a very high priority.\n\nI'm actually really angry at hobie. he's letting his 'Fuck the man!' attitude blind him to the fact that these actions put an unfathomable amount of lives at risk.\n\nIt would be like an anti-fascist in the UK trying to protest Churchill's pro-war policies in 1939, because 'fuck the man!' When, in that circumstance, protesting Churchill is simply protesting in favor of Hitler.\n\nBeing anti-fascist is good, but not if that's your whole personality to such an extent that it blinds\n\n> Because he could see everyone was treating Miles like the red headed step child \n\nI don't know what that term means, but basically: Fuck Miles. In this instance his own happiness is not more important than the lives of literally billions of people. \n\nI didn't think of Miles as a stupid kid before this moment, but I do know. He's acting like a petulant child.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pu2k9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r8sq7",
                    "author": "Used-Ad-5754",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t necessarily disagree with you. At the end of the day, Miguel O\u2019Hara is making a reasonable argument by most interpretations of utilitarian ethical philosophy (that philosophy broadly being that you want the least suffering and most happiness for the most people) that is, IF we are to believe this guy\u2019s interpretation of the multiverse is correct from his run-in that destroyed a dimension. Even with utilitarian logic, there has to be a degree of certainty before you act, although what degree is sufficient may vary. I think that angry and creepily obsessed image of Miguel we see in the movie that bother you is in part a cue that maybe he\u2019s not all there\u2014maybe he wrong about the multiverse, in which case, letting Captain Morales die would be an awful thing with no defense. When you let hunches of the greater good guide you into letting harm come to a minority, you very quickly run into disturbing historical precedent, a common critique of this philosophy brought to its extreme.\n\nThat said, even if Miguel is right, Miles isn\u2019t necessarily wrong for going against him. At the end of the day, I think Spider-Man has always been a pretty anti-utilitarian thinker. He\u2019s the kind of guy who when given a choice of letting one group of people die or another with no third option will try desperately to defy fate and find a third option anyway. He\u2019s no Reed Richards or Tony Stark; Peter and Miles and their various other incarnations are about saving the person right in front of him not (with a few odd exceptions) larger cosmic balances and this can be traced to the themes in his origin. (This would tie into a longer critique I have about the way Across the Spider-verse\u2014a movie I love for the most part\u2014interprets Spider-Man canon, but that\u2019s besides the point.) \n\nThere are other philosophies that would defend Miles\u2019s actions. Certain takes on Kantianism or duty ethics might prioritize helping a family member or helping someone in your vicinity or helping someone when there\u2019s something you can do regardless of larger consequences. Like you said, though, this is an extreme case, so I think a lot of philosophers, utilitarian and otherwise, would agree with you here since it\u2019s in theory a case where this man dies no matter what. \n\nHere\u2019s a scenario: If a doctor\u2019s patient, who happens to be their father, is dying and their organs can be used to save several other people who otherwise would not get life-saving transplants in time, would that doctor be wrong for not taking his father off of life saving support in order to spend another few days with him? Or, to parallel Miles\u2019s case a little better, would the doctor be wrong for internally hooking his father up to machines that would slightly extend his life and end several others, instead of letting him die sooner and naturally? The scale is smaller, but hopefully you can see the arguments on both sides and the reason most would not fault the the doctor for trying to grasp a few more moments of peace with family.\n\nHope that helps!",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1wjpsh",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> Even with utilitarian logic, there has to be a degree of certainty before you act, although what degree is sufficient may vary. \n\nBut given the stakes are so bloody high though, and we have TWO examples that seem to strongly suggest that the destruction of non-canon events, we SHOULD be very careful about this. Maybe there is an off chance Miguel is wrong, but it is not ethical to roll the dice with BILLIONS of human lives on the line. Something people in this thread don't seem to understand.\n\n>I think that angry and creepily obsessed image of Miguel \n\nI don't consider Miguel creppy though. He's driven, focused, and morbid. Which isn't suprising, considering he watched an entire world die because of his mistake. What I dislike is the idea lots of people here have suggested that just because Miguel isn't 'funny' that means he's wrong.\n\nI've heard of lots of reasons to mistrust people or not believe them. But just because they are not funny is one of the worst I've heard (not from you speficially)\n\n>will try desperately to defy fate and find a third option anyway\n\nThe thing is he's not looking for a 'third option.' He doesn't have any plan or stratagy besides 'feels over reals.' This is like if Spiderman went into a hospitals practicing triage and activily prevented the doctors from using it while providing no alternative. \n\nLike, right now Mile's isn't even acting in an anti-Utilitarian way. He's actively putting BILLIONS of people in harm's way for personal reasons.\n\n>duty ethics might prioritize helping a family member or helping someone in your vicinity\n\nBut there's two problems with this: \n\n1) Any system of ethics that tells you can save a single persons at the expense of an entire universe of people is simply bunk. Valuing our family more than other people is selfishness, and us as rational agents should be able to undersand our person feelings of attachment don't make a person more valuable than anyone else.\n\n2) Mile's isn't even saving his dad. Once Miles breaks teh canon event, everyone in that world INCLUDING Captain Miles will die. So Mile's isn't even choosing between his father and everyone else. Until Miles has a concerete plan, he's just choosing between his dad dying, and his dad dying along with a billion other people.\n\n>would the doctor be wrong for internally hooking his father up to machines that would slightly extend his life and end several others, instead of letting him die sooner and naturally? \n\nOf course he would be wrong, because he's valuing his dad's life as more important for no other reason than his own feelings about him.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r8sq7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ra7em",
                    "author": "brainking111",
                    "body": "The universe dying and cannon events cannot really be proven , it could be just coincidences not Linked to being a cop are at play , with cannon events you are saying that freewill doesn't exist because the universe said so. It's selfish yes but neither Miles or Miguel O'Hara know what miles effects on the multiverse are and he is even contradictory with the fact that he claims the Miles isn't Spiderman if he isn't than he has no effect at n the multiverse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rz1gv",
                    "author": "TvManiac5",
                    "body": "There is one problem with this idea. We don't factually know if canon events are actual things. In fact, the very idea that Captain Stacy quit his job and thereby can keep exisiting in the multiverse without any issue, proves that it is likely not a thing. If the system is as perfectly organized as Miguel says it is, this shouldn't have happened. \n\nAnd I know that the big hole in Pvatir's reality seems like proof, but that could have easily been caused by Spot tampering with the dimension warping technology that gave him a power boost. \n\nMiguel just assumes that Miles is the one who caused it and that it fits his canon event theory, because he needs it to be true and him to be the twisted hero due to his own survivor's guilt. \n\nI think that will be the main twist of Beyond the Spiderverse. Not that Gwen somehow found a loophole, but that the entire reality Miguel believed in, is a lie. \n\nAnd if you want another proof, Earth 42 lost its Spiderman and all its canon events as a result. There isn't a single multiversal instability in it, same with Miles's earth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1sztb6",
                    "author": "ok_ill_shut_up",
                    "body": "It ain't that deep.  It's basically the same as Captain America's \"we don't trade lives\" philosophy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1voycx",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "That's silly coming from a man who fought in a war.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1sztb6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1tbujs",
                    "author": "IceBlue",
                    "body": "No he isn't. He's assuming that he's the reason behind the collapsing dimension that caused his second family to disappear but there's zero evidence of that being true. What canon event did he prevent from happening? The Miguel from that dimension died on his own. He just took over for him. No one questions if there's any other thing that could have caused the collapse which is weird considering Peter is considered one of the smarter people in Marvel universe and they literally have a society of Peters. He creates a society of spider people that constantly risk breaking canon events by having the spider people away from their universe and goes out of his way to stop Miles from stopping the Spot from killing his dad. So what was Gwen's goal in Miles' universe? Wasn't it to stop the Spot? He punishes her for not stopping the Spot and tries to stop Miles from stopping the Spot. It makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1usz14",
                    "author": "Cyberpunk2077isTrash",
                    "body": "Something someone pointed out to me is that Miguel is fundamentally mistaken about the nature of Spider-Man. \n\nLooking at Miguel and his inner circle, Jessica Drew and Ben Riley.\n\nNone of them really follow the rules Miguel set and yet their universes arent being distorted.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1vmhyv",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "How do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1usz14"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1xm1d0",
                    "author": "Mindless-Situation51",
                    "body": "Morally correct if he's right, but his world view is flawed and it's hinted at that he's wrong. Like if disrupting canon events were as disastrous as he made it out to be, then why does Mile's universe still exist? His entire existence, as Miguel has stated so many times, is an anomaly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16os7ne",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                "date": "2023-09-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1q8f71",
                "author": "RemusShepherd",
                "body": "Something that I don't think anyone has pointed out yet is that Captain Stacy dying is NOT Miles' canon event. His canon event was his uncle dying.  That was even confirmed when they explain the canon event theory, and Miles is shown with his dying uncle.\n\nSo it's possible that Miguel is right, AND Miles can and should save his father without repercussions.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16os7ne"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qak81",
                "author": "Raspint",
                "body": "\u2206\n\nSo, this is something that you might be right about, but I think it's more a problem with the film's writing. Because for some reason they say 'A police captain always dies.' Even though we KNOW that Toby Migure's and Tom Holland's spidermen don't lose captains.\n\nAnd also, Miles seems to believe that this is a canon event, because he never uses this argument.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1q8f71"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qaold",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RemusShepherd ([3\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RemusShepherd)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qak81"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mjet8",
                    "author": "Vesurel",
                    "body": "How do we know that cannon events being disrupted is why there's issues?",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mkif9",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Because it happened twice before. \n\nMiguel's universe, and in Pavitr Prabhakar's universe.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mjet8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mm4r3",
                    "author": "CootysRat_Semen",
                    "body": "The problem is that he is just wrong. \n\nHis existence breaks the canon. So does Gwen\u2019s.  \n\nThe whole point is that there is no Canon.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1n9e4n",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Prabhakar's universe and Miguel's seem to dispute this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mm4r3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mmnwz",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": ">Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous danger of disrupting a canon event. \n\nThe main problem with this is he doesn't seem to actually know the mechanism. He doesn't know why this happens, or if will always happen the same way, or what constitutes a canon event beyond seeing some patterns in spider stories. In the case of Miles specifically, it is not known if canon events affect him the same way, as he is himself an anomaly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mnjwq",
                    "author": "TSN09",
                    "body": "The whole point is not to make the wrong choice in the \"Trolley problem\" it's that this is not the trolley problem.\n\nThe point is that good guys don't make compromises like that, spider man (what he should stand for) is to not leave a guy behind, it's about doing good no matter the odds. That Spiderman 2099 has failed to be a true spiderman because he has given up into this role of \"accountant\" where he's satisfied with tons of people suffering just because \"the numbers are better\"\n\nRemember in the first Tobey movie when Green Goblin drops a cable car full of children and Mary Jane? This is a scaled down version of your CMV. If spiderman had the reasoning you are using he simply would've let MJ die, but he decided to save everyone no matter what, it's not about being \"smart\" it's about deciding that you will do something and doing it. And spiderman will never decide to just let people die.\n\nJust because you increase the scale and make it a full dimension with unknowable causes and mechanisms doesn't change who spiderman should be, he's the guy who will save everyone, not because he knows he can, because he will try.\n\nSpiderman 2099 isn't morally evil for letting people die for the sake of trillions, but the whole point is that he's morally decrepit because he has decided to give up, he decided to not try and solve the issue and just play game manager while letting people die. And even if you don't dislike that. **HE FAILED AS SPIDERMAN.**",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mwofg",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> The point is that good guys don't make compromises like that,\n\nThan that's a stupid, stupid message. If this is the real meaning of what it means to be spiderman, than Spiderman is a stupid story that peddles childish understandings of right and wrong.\n\n>it's about doing good no matter the odds.\n\nPreventing an entire dimension from dying is good. If Spiderman's writers disagree than they are idiots.\n\n>Remember in the first Tobey movie when Green Goblin drops a cable car full of children and Mary Jane?\n\ndifferent situation: It WAS possible to save both. In this case, it's simply not.\n\nIf what you are saying is right, than this is the only major flaw with this incredible movie. The writers wanted to tell a story about the necessity to reject compromise, but they picked a situation where refusing to compromise is destructive and suicidal.\n\n> HE FAILED AS SPIDERMAN.\n\nThan spiderman is an idiot and he should fail.\n\nPeter Poker said it really well: The hardest part about this job is you cannot save everyone.\n\nI know comics are made for children, but these are stories that are trying to say genuine things about the human condition. And the idea of 'never compromise' is stupid. \n\nSometimes it is correct to not compromise - such as the British not negotiating with Germany after France's defeat.\n\nBut sometimes its requried - Medical disasters are a perfect example, given the need for triage.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mnjwq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mpftx",
                    "author": "Love_Shaq_Baby",
                    "body": ">Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nWell the key issue is that Miguel doesn't actually know if these universes were destroyed by the disruption of a canon event. That's his pet theory, but there are plenty of alternate explanations for why these universes were destroyed.\n\nFor example, the universe Miguel watched collapse wasn't his own. We've seen that people glitch out when they go to universes that aren't their own. It's possible that the issue isn't that Miguel wasn't following the canon, but rather that he was living in another universe for an extended period of time.\n\nAnd if that's the case, then Miguel is being extremely reckless with his whole spider society project. For all we know, his actions might be contributing to the impending collapse of his own universe. But Miguel doesn't seem to be considering this as a possibility.\n\nAs for the destruction of Pavitir Prabhakar's universe, is that the doing of Miles or is that the doing of the Spot? The Spot absorbed the power of a particle collider. That seems like an action that has far more ramifications for the stability of a universe, than a cop not dying when he was supposed to.\n\nAnd really, how can Capt. Stacy's death at that moment be considered a canon event when that event would never have happened without the Spot coming in from another universe? And the Spot wouldn't be there in that universe if it wasn't for Miles, right? So how can Miles rescuing  Capt. Stacy be considered canon-breaking,  if Capt. Stacy was only in danger because of Miles prior actions?\n\nThe whole canon event theory is flimsy, way too flimsy to knowingly condemn a man to death on. Miguel doesn't have the evidence to show this trolley problem even exists before making decisions to let people die for \"the greater good.\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mvnlj",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "So the problem with this response is that the disruption of canon events is the best explanation for collapsing universes. We've seen two collapsing dimensions collapse AFTER a canon event.\n\nTHAT is the commonality between Miguel's 2nd universe, and Prabhakar's universe. There is no reason given to suggest that Miguel's 2nd universe AND Prabhakar collapsed for the reasons  you gave. It is I admit not *Impossible* for you to be wrong, but there is little reason to think you are actually correct.\n\nI'll use an example: Say you and I are roommates, and tues night we eat sushi, and Wed morning we are sick with the same symptoms.\n\nNow let's say you hung out in your room the night before, and I went for a run. It is possible that you got sick from something in your room, and I caught something when out on my run. \n\nBut because we share the same symptoms (puking, etc) and we both ate sushi, it is **likely** that we are sick because we ate some bad sushi.\n\nIn this case, Miguel and Prabhakar's universe are you and I, and the breaking of canon events is the sushi we both ate. \n\n> The Spot absorbed the power of a particle collider. That seems like an action that has far more ramifications for the stability of a universe, than a cop not dying when he was supposed to.\n\nI disagree. First, we see the computer specifically say: A canon event has been disrupted. The same computer that has reliable knowledge of all the different dimensions.\n\nSecond: In *isolation* perhaps it might seem more significant, but consider this: EVERY spiderverse seems to have a Dead cop/father figure in it. There's a scene where we just see a line of many, many dead cops/father figures. Not every universe has a collider. This suggest to me that Spiderman loosing a cop/father is a *fundamental* element of each world.\n\nIn fact, that would fit the literal philosophical definition of 'necessary' quite nicely. That being something that is true in all possible worlds.\n\nIf the death of a cop/father is a necessary element of Spiderman, than it means that in all possible worlds Spiderman loses a father/cop. Therefore the removal of a 'necessary' component seems to me to be a good reason for something to collapse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mpftx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mphac",
                    "author": "RodeoBob",
                    "body": "Across the Spiderverse isn't \"the Trolley Problem\".\n\nIt's the [Kobayashi Maru](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobayashi_Maru). It's the no-win situation, where you **must** make a choice between one of two things. That theme shows up over & over in the film, as Miles is *repeatedly* told by different characters in different situations that he has to make a choice between two things, and he keeps say \"No, I can do/have both!\" \n\nMiguel (and most of the Spider-people) accept the framework of \"you have to choose between two things in a no-win situation\", but Miles *doesn't*, which is one of the things that makes him different.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mtxpp",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">It's the no-win situation\n\nBut there is a win. Preventing the entire dimension from dying is a pretty good thing\n\n>but Miles doesn't, which is one of the things that makes him different.\n\nAnd that could be great, if it was shown as a flaw. As it stands, the music ques/framing all make the audience want to root FOR miles against that mean old vampire spiderman.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mphac"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mpzbo",
                    "author": "Foxhound97_",
                    "body": "The themes of the movie(even though it was only part one)are very clear about the conclusion of whether this chrachter will be right. \n\nMiles and gwen(this applies to most Spiderman comic even the MCU version with Peter and the avengers has this quality)is often related to being an outsider who wants to find a community that understand them which happens to both of them in the movie but miles is rejected by Miguel and asserts that he will be in control of his own destiny(which feel like meta community on how shitty people were to this chrachter was introduced despite the endless version of Spiderman that have already exists) and gwen realises her longing for people who understands her have allowed her to be taken advantage of. It would be strange if both chrachters learn to have faith in themselves and are proven wrong in the next movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mtp74",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> The themes of the movie(even though it was only part one)are very clear about the conclusion of whether this chrachter will be right.\n\nOf course they are. And I'm saying that the writers have given a bad justification for us to believe in Miles. The only reason we as an audience believe in him is due to non-evidence based feels over reals. Such as music/framing ques that tell us that \"No, Miguel is being a big meanie here\"\n\n>and gwen realises her longing for people who understands her have allowed her to be taken advantage of. \n\nIs preventing the death of every single person in your dimension being 'taken advatage off?'\n\nAnd don't forget that Gwen ASKED to join  the Spiderverse team, at Miguel's objections. Gwen was not 'used' by the spiderverse team. She signed up, and then abandoned the morally correct thing to do because her vision is clouded by her emotional connection with miles.\n\n> It would be strange if both chrachters learn to have faith in themselves and are proven wrong in the next movie that would very strange set up and pay off.\n\nIt would be. But it would also be correct, morally speaking even though it wouldn't be narratively speaking.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mpzbo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1msi25",
                    "author": "mitchade",
                    "body": "Miguel isn\u2019t right but for different reasons. Miguel said it himself: Miles isn\u2019t supposed to be Spider-Man. The whole thing was an accident. \n\nPart of my reasoning is a prediction for the third movie. Since Miles isn\u2019t supposed to be Spider-Man, he can save his dad without consequence. \n\nThat being said, Miguel would be right about any other cannon event being changed. Miles isn\u2019t a cannon Spider-Man, though, and therefore his fathers death isn\u2019t/wouldn\u2019t be a cannon event.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1msv28",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "You might be right, but none of that changes the fact that, with the info available. Given we can only hold the characters accoutnable for what they could possibly know:\n\nThat Miguel is right.\n\nAnd Miles is being selfish.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1msi25"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mudw7",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "Assuming he's truthful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mvjvr",
                    "author": "BelleColibri",
                    "body": "The problem is that we (and Miguel) understand very little about how the multiverse and canon events work. It\u2019s just unbelievable that it works the way he thinks it does. Miles\u2019 whole situation makes no sense in the \u201ccanon event\u201d narrative, he\u2019s not a \u201creal\u201d Spider-Man.\n\nSo Miguel needs to be more humble about his understanding and let people do things that seem *obviously* good.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1mxhl2",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "But we have two examples where disrupting canon events causes catastrophic death tolls. In that case, shouldn't we be VERY careful about this, even if we don't understand the process?\n\nWhat gives Miles the right to roll those dice and potentially kill ever single person in his universe for himself?\n\nLet me ask you another question: What do you think Captain Morales would say about this? I personally think he's the kind of man who would be willing to risk his life to save even a *stranger*\n\nWhat would he think of Miles putting the risk of every single person in the world (incluidng his own mother) at risk just to save his father's life?\n\nI think Captain Miles would tell Miles that is wrong, and than let himself be killed by spot if that's what it would prevent.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1mvjvr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nf70q",
                    "author": "TMO192837",
                    "body": "I think most answers here are on a similar page, but the main point is that we've established Myles was NOT canonically meant to become spiderman. Then, if Myles had not been doing spiderman things, spot would not have become spot. If spot didn't exist, nothing would've happened on Earth 50101 and there would be no threat to Myles' dad. So it seems a strange conclusion that Myles letting his dad die IS a canon event, when his dad is only in danger because Myles became spiderman, which itself was not a canon event. Inherently, everything Myles is doing since he became spiderman is against the canon. Either the concept of canon events is incorrect or Miguel is wrong about whether Myles was supposed to be spiderman.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ng4nu",
                    "author": "SteleUraniumBX",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think so . \n\nMost Spidermen are written not to do heroing for the sake of like king to help people, but more of a moral debt sorta deal. (IE, If you have the ability to help, but you don\u2019t? The consequences are on you).\nAnd this is unlike some characters like S&L or MAWS Clark Kent, who help because they likes to help.\n\n\nNot to mention, Miguel doesn\u2019t actually know. Only his actions collapsed a universe and his were so far out of the norm of what hes been preaching against. (Like, how is keeping someone alive when they \u201cshouldve\u201d died, equivalent To stepping into a reality where you don\u2019t exist anymore and attempting long term habitation?)",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ngrdz",
                    "author": "Xrath02",
                    "body": "(Warning: it's been a minute since I saw Across the Spiderverse, so my memory may be a bit fuzzy)\n\nMiles himself is a pretty big departure from the expected canon of both his own universe and the universe his spider came from, and neither of them have collapsed, so that's two examples that exist in direct opposition to Miguel's canon theory. Even if you don't count Miles' universe since he still seems to be going through certain canon events as an atypical spiderman, the universe his spider came from would certainly count as one that breaks canon. That universe doesn't even have a spiderman to go through canon events (at least to our knowledge), meaning that none of them can happen. Teleporting the spider to another universe should have already triggered a bunch of canon breaks and maybe a even a universal collapse, but instead the world just looks darker.\n\nI also don't think that Pavitr Prabhakar's universe is definitive evidence for Miguel's theory, given that the dimensional problems there could be attributed to Spot's influence, rather than Miles breaking a single canon event. \n\nMiguel's own experience might not even be definitively supporting his canon theory, though I don't think we really know enough to say much about that. Maybe it actually was the broken canon that triggered it's collapse, maybe Miguel's long-term stay in a foreign universe was the trigger, or maybe some guy pressed the wrong button on their local particle collider, and that had very bad outcomes for the rest of reality. We really just don't know.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nhkr3",
                    "author": "Manowaffle",
                    "body": "The problem is that the world is full of people like Miguel who are utterly convinced of their worldview and who see any sacrifice as necessary. But that\u2019s the mentality of a doomsday cult: \u201cthe world will end unless we kill this innocent person. And since the world might end, there\u2019s no cost too great.\u201d\n\nBut as Miles points out, killing people based on the predictions of some algorithm is pretty messed up. And that\u2019s not just theoretical, for years the US military was killing people based on \u201csignature strikes\u201d which used pretty flimsy evidence to justify thousands of killings.\n\nMoreover, it\u2019s a critique about how society treats kids like Miles and his parents. The guidance counselor tries to make him and his family fit into a convenient stereotype, one that is totally unrepresentative of their lives. Peter, Gwen, Miguel, etc all insist that they know what\u2019s best for Miles, but it turns out they don\u2019t really know. And letting innocent people die for sure on the theory that something bad might happen is a really dangerous mentality.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nm0qp",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> The problem is that the world is full of people like Miguel who are utterly convinced of their worldview and who see any sacrifice as necessary\n\nBut Miguel is right. The world is also full of people who think that 'Killing people is always wrong! There is always another way!' These are the same people who would have let the nazis roll over all of europe and never fire a shot to stop them.\n\nJust because there's a lot of people who believe in a mystical 'third way' doesn't mean Miles is right here.\n\n>But as Miles points out, killing people based on the predictions of some algorithm is pretty messed up\n\nIt's not messed up. We've seen TWICE what happens when canon events are disrupted. \n\nWhat's messed up is letting the entire world die because of your own selfishness.\n\nI don't care what the guidance counselor says. And I actually don't give a shit what's right for Miles. I care about PREVENTING THE DEATH OF EVERY PERSON IN THIS DIMENSION.\n\nWhat's hard to understand about that? Miles and his happiness/family is immaterial when put against those odds.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nhkr3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nsbfb",
                    "author": "stolenfires",
                    "body": "Miguel's universe didn't collapse because he took the place of Dead!Miguel. It collapsed because he's the one who killed Dead!Miguel.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nssng",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "No he didn't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nsbfb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nt4ku",
                    "author": "Konfliction",
                    "body": "One small counter, him being big and scary as you put it isn\u2019t necessarily them implying that he\u2019s that and therefore evil. I think it\u2019s largely to imply how dissimilar he is to the concept of Spiderman. \n\nWe don\u2019t also know yet if there\u2019s truth to the idea of Miles saving his dad and that blowing up his universe. The very existence of a Miles that\u2019s basically Prowler because their universe has no Spiderman shows that just because something happens to a universe that isn\u2019t what\u2019s supposed to happen, Doesn\u2019t mean the universe implodes. \n\nI don\u2019t think we have proof yet that Miquel is even correct in the first place.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nv0um",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> I think it\u2019s largely to imply how dissimilar he is to the concept of Spiderman.\n\nI mean if that is the case he is a better spiderman. I'd much rather have Miguel looking after our world than Miles. Mile's is going to get people killed with his self-centeredness.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nt4ku"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1nvypn",
                    "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
                    "body": "Have you ever watched Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead? Miguel\u2019s logical framework is unworkable. You can\u2019t have a system or fate mixed with chance. His theory of normal events, subject to free will and chance, and cannon events, subject to fate, inevitably leads to the cannon events no longer happening, even if through butterfly effect from the tiniest alteration. By his own logic, resisting Miles is futile. \n\nHe\u2019s trying to rationalize his own past losses, and has made a theory of the universe that falls apart at the slightest prodding.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o12bc",
                    "author": "captcanuk",
                    "body": "Good comparison. Miguel effectively flipped a coin twice and noticed it was tails both times and decided that all coin flips must be tails.  Similar to a bin of balls you can\u2019t see and reach in to pull out a ball that could be red or black and decide that taking two red out means all are red.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1nvypn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o1qhb",
                    "author": "Spiridor",
                    "body": "So.... just to make certain I understand what you're saying... you're asking for people to convince you that the main message of the movie is true?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o29t6",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Does the fact that it is the main message mean that it is correct?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1o1qhb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o1x6q",
                    "author": "themcos",
                    "body": "A little late to this party, but I think you need to separate two distinct concepts:\n\n- Is Miguel morally correct?\n\n- Is Miles morally correct / acting rationally / responsibly.\n\nBecause it seems like your argument is primarily that Miles is being reckless, which is reasonable if you take seriously Miguel's claims. And I even grant that in the context of the movie, Miguel's claims probably *should* be taken seriously, especially given the information available to Miles. I think it's absolutely fair to say that Miles is acting emotionally and not necessarily rationally, and that this is dangerous given the stakes.\n\n**But**, Miles being wrong doesn't make Miguel morally correct, because we don't even know of Miguel is telling the truth. If Miguel is *lying* about some aspect of the canon events, he's pretty obviously not morally correct.\n\nEven if he believes himself correct but is simply wrong, this calls into question what information he's basing his actions on, and if he's jumping to conclusions and aggressively policing the multiverse based on incomplete or suspect information, that also calls his judgment into question.\n\nI guess the way I'd put it is that regardless of your assessment of Miles, *Miguel* is only \"morally correct\" if you take everything he says as truth. We'll have to wait until part 2, but I'm a little skeptical of that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o3gob",
                    "author": "Scott7Sage",
                    "body": "I grant that Miguel has reason to believe he is correct. As you noted, he has seen this scenario play out (at least) twice with universe-ending results. Obviously, the movie is setting him up to be wrong, but based on his knowledge of the world his position is reasonable.\n\nBut Miles has *not* experienced the same things and cannot be judged by information available to Miguel (and thus to us as the audience) and not to him. From Miles\u2019 perspective, he has seen one universe threatened due to (what he is told) is the disruption of a canon event. He is *told* about Miguel\u2019s universe (but is presented with no concrete evidence to corroborate this story). And Miles has very little reason to implicitly trust Miguel (who, after all, has treated Miles with nothing but hostility and contempt throughout).\n\nIf I were Miles, I would not be willing to risk my loved ones\u2019 life based off a single event + an anecdote shared by a source of questionable trustworthiness, particularly when the circumstances surrounding the one scenario he had personally seen differed significantly from the circumstances of his own universe.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o3njh",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">  From Miles\u2019 perspective, he has seen one universe threatened due to (what he is told) is the disruption of a canon event.\n\nMiles has an entire society of spider people who back Miguel up. I don't need to have ever seen someone die of cancer to know that smoking is dangerous if the entire medical establishment tells me it is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1o3gob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1o7n3x",
                    "author": "camelCasing",
                    "body": "Miguel is only in any kind of moral right if you accept as ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE FACT his assertion that disrupting certain events in a Spiderman's life will utterly annihilate their universe.\n\nNeither the audience nor the characters have been given tangible proof that this is the case. Miguel remains a fascist, even if he's motivated by (potentially unfounded) fear.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qpb3t",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">Miguel is only in any kind of moral right if you accept as ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE FACT his assertion that disrupting certain events in a Spiderman's life will utterly annihilate their universe.\n\nNo you don't. You just need to have better reasons than Mile's gives. And the argument Miles gives for his position is:\n\n**Nothing**\n\nYou are mistaken when you suggest we need to know with certainty that Miguel is correct. We almsot never have certainty in any of our conclusions. \n\nThat's how inductive reasoning works.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1o7n3x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ohs81",
                    "author": "chaos0310",
                    "body": "Doesn\u2019t Gwen existing and her dad still being alive throw the whole canon event thing into wack? She said it to miles. \u201cIn every other universe Gwen and spidey love each other. And in every other universe Gwen Stacey dies\u2026\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qjkjn",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> \u201cIn every other universe Gwen and spidey love each other. And in every other universe Gwen Stacey dies\u2026\n\nNo, she said bad things happen.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1ohs81"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1om7vw",
                    "author": "epc-_-1039",
                    "body": "The problem is that we have no evidence that Miguel's story is actually correct. Some of the very \"canon events\" he described do *not* happen to every Spiderman. For instance, he proclaimed very clearly that \"Uncle Ben has to die\" and yet there is no Uncle Ben, or equivalent character, for Miguel.\n\nI'm inclined to believe that he is not trustworthy and that his story about jumping through the multiverse, canon events, etc. is untrue. Therefore he is *not* morally correct because:\n\n1. He is lying about the entire setup;\n2. Since the entire setup is based on a falsehood, there can be no morally correct stance using that falsehood as the cornerstone.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oncl1",
                    "author": "TheUltimatenerd05",
                    "body": "Thefilm makes it pretty obvious that Miguel's view on canon events is wrong.\n\nMiles shouldn't be spiderman he's a mistake that goes against the canon. but without Mils the villain of the film wouldn't exist so the canon event for one of the spidermen wouldn't have happened in the first place as the threat thaty would have killed the captain doesn't exist without Miles.\n\nMiguel has a conspiracy theory that doesn't have evidence to support it and has lots of obvious contradictions.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qhua5",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> Miles shouldn't be spiderman he's a mistake that goes against the canon.\n\nDisrupting canon events doesn't mean 'Nothing ever changes.' Canon events are specific events things that must happen.\n\nObviously Miles NOT being bitten was not a canon event.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1oncl1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1onqz9",
                    "author": "ILikeToJustReadHere",
                    "body": "If Miguel was right, universe 44 would have been destroyed, because it was denied its spider-man by having the spider ripped into Miles Universe.\n\nInstead,  the universe just didn't have its spiderman.\n\nWe see that the universe starts collapsing moments after the Canon event is stopped. But in Mile's world,  Spiderman's death doesn't result in the world collapsing. This is either because the universe knew a new Spiderman existed, Miles is a Canon Spiderman, or the Canon events of Spiderman are not required in order keep the universe alive. \n\nBut instead,  Miguel calls him an \"anomaly\".\n\nMiguel is right about Canon events destroying universes. He's wrong about what the Canon events are,  as they can be different for each universe,  as noted in the What Ifs.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oo0sb",
                    "author": "edingerc",
                    "body": "Might want to wait until you see the next movie.  I predict that Miles will save his father and his universe won't implode.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qhfe3",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I adress this in my post. You are correct.\n\nthat doesn't mean Miles isn't being extremely selfish here. I'm judging him based on the information avalaible to him at the time.\n\nI'm not using my meta knowledge of how movies tend to work out to justify Mile's actions, because that's knowledge Miles would never have.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1oo0sb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oo8p1",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\nLet's approach this with a simple calculus: the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If we're weighing the life of Captain Morales against the lives of everyone in Miles's dimension, the math seems clear. But the moral complexity of this scenario isn't reducible to just numbers.\n\n>He's doing the above because if Miles does save his dear old dad, then everyone in Miles's dimension will die.\n\nThe assertion that everyone in Miles's dimension will die is based on knowledge from Miguel's experiences in other timelines. But relying solely on past experiences, no matter how consistent, doesn't necessarily determine the future. History, as you should be well aware, is filled with instances where patterns were disrupted by unforeseen events.\n\n>A) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nSentimentality and personal connections often blur our judgment. It's understandable why Miles would want to save his father. The question isn't whether it's justifiable from an emotional standpoint\u2014it clearly is\u2014but whether it's justifiable from a logical, moral standpoint.\n\n>B) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nAgain, this is based on Miguel's past experiences. It's an assumption, not an established fact. One could argue that every dimension has its own unique set of variables, and past experiences from one might not necessarily apply to another.\n\n>\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nHope and friendship, while powerful in narratives, don't serve as concrete solutions to tangible problems. However, discounting them entirely would be a mistake. History is littered with instances where hope and solidarity made the impossible possible. To argue otherwise would be to ignore significant portions of human achievement.\n\n>As of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish.\n\nMiles's actions might be driven by emotion, but it's necessary to consider the broader context. If you were in a similar situation, could you, with certainty, claim that you'd act differently? Emotion is an intrinsic part of human nature and often drives our most significant actions, for better or worse.\n\n>Because this isn't even a trolley problem. It's:\n\n>A) Either one person dies\n\n>or\n\n>B) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.\n\nThis is an oversimplification of a complex issue. The multiverse concept itself, as you rightly pointed out, is challenging to comprehend fully. To reduce it to a binary choice might not capture the entirety of the situation.\n\nMiguel's perspective is rooted in experience and perhaps a more utilitarian worldview, but it's important to acknowledge the multidimensionality (pun intended) of the issue. It's not just about saving one life versus many; it's about understanding the complexities of existence, the unpredictability of outcomes, and the human need to hold onto hope, even in the face of overwhelming odds.\n\nIf you had the power to alter events in the multiverse, would you act based solely on past experiences, or would you consider the possibility that each dimension, each decision, might yield different results? Would you not entertain the notion that the multiverse, by its very nature, defies predictability?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1oq9yo",
                    "author": "PuzzleMeDo",
                    "body": "Should you murder one innocent if doing so will save the world?\n\nAccording to ethical calculus, yes. (According to virtue ethics, maybe not.)\n\nBut, in real life: If you ever believe that murdering an innocent person will save the world, it's probably because you've gone crazy and are suffering from delusions. The instinct that you should never murder innocent people is almost always correct.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qh7lf",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">But, in real life: If you ever believe that murdering an innocent person will save the world, it's probably because you've gone crazy and are suffering from delusions\n\nIn real life spider people wouldn't exist anyway. So... you've not really given answer. you've just shut down the conversation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1oq9yo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ouu6g",
                    "author": "EmilOfHerning",
                    "body": "O'Hara might be correct, given his available info, but that does not make Miles, our protagonist who we naturally side with, wrong.\nAre you familiar with Pascal's wizard? A man come up to you and claim to be a wizard who can produce infinite moral value, on the very specific conditions that you immediately hand over every single penny in your name. This one decision is so important, that it will ultimately render any other action committed by anyone ever meaningless in comparison. Should you do it, even if the chances of him speaking the truth are near zero? 0.00000000001 times infinity is still infinity.\n\nThis is essensially Miles' position, only O'Hara demands his life, not his money",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1p2ai4",
                    "author": "ReplyHappy",
                    "body": "I reckon in the 3rd movie Captain Morales will die",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1p59pp",
                    "author": "Whole-Recover-8911",
                    "body": "I'm gonna make up a term because I don't know how else to describe it: this is an issue of overused character plot inflation. \n\nWhen you have a character who becomes popular, in order to give that character something to do they start putting that character in larger and larger situations that are outside of their original world/skill set. \n\nFriendly neighborhood Spider-Man is a teenager who should be dealing with teenage problems. The spiderverse plot is like a bunch of janitors dealing with one problem on the Living Tribunal's to do list. \n\nThat's an exaggeration. \n\nBetter to say that this is a Reed Richards plot given to a friendly neighborhood Spider-Man that even Reed would have problems with, and he is, arguably, one of the smartest men in the Marvel universe.\n\nSpider people aren't dumb by any means but dealing accurately with multidimensional problems, while visually interesting, is not their thing so these holes show up that are bad plotting spackled over with good dramatic writing.\n\nI don't want to be like one of those people who can't enjoy watching the Hunger Games because they don't think that the system of government is in any way realistic or sustainable and I will continue enjoying the Spiderverse as entertainment but a lot of this speaks to the larger issue of all the Marvel comics characters not being under centralized control. When Aquaman starts acting like Batman because that's the one character you have in your palm and you don't really care about continuity then plot inflation will be an unfortunate side effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qh09u",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">  is not their thing so these holes show up that are bad plotting spackled over with good dramatic writing.\n\nProblem is, who are you to say it is not their thing? In a spiderverse of many spiderman, it stands to reason that some of them might in fact be brilliant theoretical physicists. Remember, Miles is gearing up to go to PRINCESTON at the start of this film. One of the most prestigious places to study.\n\nJust because Reed richard isn't here, doesn't mean that Miguel doesn't have brilliant spider people/AI working for him.\n\nAlso, i gotta disagree with you about the centralized control. There is no chance this movie would have happened if Spiderman was owned by the mouse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1p59pp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pduhn",
                    "author": "xraypowers",
                    "body": "Thank you for the spoiler alert. Deeply appreciated.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qfkun",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "Of course. People who don't give spoiler warnings are dicks.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pduhn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pe3a9",
                    "author": "Psychologinut",
                    "body": "If you\u2019re not an idiot though, there\u2019s clearly other factors at play here. It seems pretty clear to me that Miguel O\u2019Hara is hiding something. Peter B. Parker even points out how \u201che\u2019s the only Spider-Man who isn\u2019t funny\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qfhmb",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "I don't see that though. How is not being humorous mean he's hiding something?\n\nI just took that as Miguel is in a very deep amount of pain. His family died, and he watched a universe, and hence an unfathomable amount of people die because of his mistake.\n\nHe's traumatized and cynical. Nothing wrong with that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pe3a9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pe507",
                    "author": "Puzzleheaded_Bite867",
                    "body": "Everyone posting dissent with OP's opinion should stop. He will just argue with and condescend to you for not agreeing with him. Seriously why did you even post?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qf9z4",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">You are not open to having your view changed, \n\nYou should talk to the people who I gave delta's too.\n\nI don't get people like you: If I do anything other than roll over and accept arguments (that have poor reasoning behind them) I'm suddenly unreasonable.\n\nFine, next time  a Nigerien prince emails me and asks for my credit card information so he can wire me his forturne I should just accept it right? Because if I don't it means I'm unwilling to have my mind change?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pe507"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1phz34",
                    "author": "zonic_squared",
                    "body": "The problem with this entire argument that it only works if Miguel is correct in what is a canon event the consequences with them. And the movie is pretty cut and dry on him not be completely correct. \n\nUsing Mumbattan as an example is another problem, because the hole in the world doesn't open after Singh is saved. It opens after Spot absorbs the collider. If Singh didn't create the hole, why would him dying stop it?\n\nUniverse 42 and 1610B existence also poke holes in his argument. 67 also does, but it's impossible for the cast to know this until the end. Let alone, Mayday existing. And his own caused collapse is visibly different from anything else we've seen in the movie, caused under significantly different circumstances that he's trying to prevent.\n\nMiguel's entire arc is a metanarrative approach on the more militant Spider-man fanbase. His obsession with canon events and the immediate disapproval of Mile being a real Spider-man could have been taken directly from some chud on Twitter and not looked out of place.\n\nSpider-verse questions on whether or not they have to do things the same as what came before. If Miguel was right, then this entire theme would be tossed out the window.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1pu2k9",
                    "author": "Dr_Quiet_Time",
                    "body": "I think so too but he got WAY too personal towards Miles. He didn\u2019t need to. Telling him he doesn\u2019t belong as if he chose intentionally to get bitten by a spider that came to his universe. \n\nThere\u2019s some projection happening on Miguel\u2019s side for sure. I feel like there could have been a more straight forward less emotional way it could have been done. But Miguel acted like it was a personal slight against him. \n\nThis is why l loved Hobie. Because he could see everyone was treating Miles like the red headed step child and didn\u2019t go along with it. He acted against it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qc4nq",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": ">I think so too but he got WAY too personal towards Miles.\n\nIs that really a big deal? This guy is about to put everyone's lives in jeopardy for his own selfish happiness. When someone is being that careless with the lives of others 'being nice to them' isn't a very high priority.\n\nI'm actually really angry at hobie. he's letting his 'Fuck the man!' attitude blind him to the fact that these actions put an unfathomable amount of lives at risk.\n\nIt would be like an anti-fascist in the UK trying to protest Churchill's pro-war policies in 1939, because 'fuck the man!' When, in that circumstance, protesting Churchill is simply protesting in favor of Hitler.\n\nBeing anti-fascist is good, but not if that's your whole personality to such an extent that it blinds\n\n> Because he could see everyone was treating Miles like the red headed step child \n\nI don't know what that term means, but basically: Fuck Miles. In this instance his own happiness is not more important than the lives of literally billions of people. \n\nI didn't think of Miles as a stupid kid before this moment, but I do know. He's acting like a petulant child.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1pu2k9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r8sq7",
                    "author": "Used-Ad-5754",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t necessarily disagree with you. At the end of the day, Miguel O\u2019Hara is making a reasonable argument by most interpretations of utilitarian ethical philosophy (that philosophy broadly being that you want the least suffering and most happiness for the most people) that is, IF we are to believe this guy\u2019s interpretation of the multiverse is correct from his run-in that destroyed a dimension. Even with utilitarian logic, there has to be a degree of certainty before you act, although what degree is sufficient may vary. I think that angry and creepily obsessed image of Miguel we see in the movie that bother you is in part a cue that maybe he\u2019s not all there\u2014maybe he wrong about the multiverse, in which case, letting Captain Morales die would be an awful thing with no defense. When you let hunches of the greater good guide you into letting harm come to a minority, you very quickly run into disturbing historical precedent, a common critique of this philosophy brought to its extreme.\n\nThat said, even if Miguel is right, Miles isn\u2019t necessarily wrong for going against him. At the end of the day, I think Spider-Man has always been a pretty anti-utilitarian thinker. He\u2019s the kind of guy who when given a choice of letting one group of people die or another with no third option will try desperately to defy fate and find a third option anyway. He\u2019s no Reed Richards or Tony Stark; Peter and Miles and their various other incarnations are about saving the person right in front of him not (with a few odd exceptions) larger cosmic balances and this can be traced to the themes in his origin. (This would tie into a longer critique I have about the way Across the Spider-verse\u2014a movie I love for the most part\u2014interprets Spider-Man canon, but that\u2019s besides the point.) \n\nThere are other philosophies that would defend Miles\u2019s actions. Certain takes on Kantianism or duty ethics might prioritize helping a family member or helping someone in your vicinity or helping someone when there\u2019s something you can do regardless of larger consequences. Like you said, though, this is an extreme case, so I think a lot of philosophers, utilitarian and otherwise, would agree with you here since it\u2019s in theory a case where this man dies no matter what. \n\nHere\u2019s a scenario: If a doctor\u2019s patient, who happens to be their father, is dying and their organs can be used to save several other people who otherwise would not get life-saving transplants in time, would that doctor be wrong for not taking his father off of life saving support in order to spend another few days with him? Or, to parallel Miles\u2019s case a little better, would the doctor be wrong for internally hooking his father up to machines that would slightly extend his life and end several others, instead of letting him die sooner and naturally? The scale is smaller, but hopefully you can see the arguments on both sides and the reason most would not fault the the doctor for trying to grasp a few more moments of peace with family.\n\nHope that helps!",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1wjpsh",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "> Even with utilitarian logic, there has to be a degree of certainty before you act, although what degree is sufficient may vary. \n\nBut given the stakes are so bloody high though, and we have TWO examples that seem to strongly suggest that the destruction of non-canon events, we SHOULD be very careful about this. Maybe there is an off chance Miguel is wrong, but it is not ethical to roll the dice with BILLIONS of human lives on the line. Something people in this thread don't seem to understand.\n\n>I think that angry and creepily obsessed image of Miguel \n\nI don't consider Miguel creppy though. He's driven, focused, and morbid. Which isn't suprising, considering he watched an entire world die because of his mistake. What I dislike is the idea lots of people here have suggested that just because Miguel isn't 'funny' that means he's wrong.\n\nI've heard of lots of reasons to mistrust people or not believe them. But just because they are not funny is one of the worst I've heard (not from you speficially)\n\n>will try desperately to defy fate and find a third option anyway\n\nThe thing is he's not looking for a 'third option.' He doesn't have any plan or stratagy besides 'feels over reals.' This is like if Spiderman went into a hospitals practicing triage and activily prevented the doctors from using it while providing no alternative. \n\nLike, right now Mile's isn't even acting in an anti-Utilitarian way. He's actively putting BILLIONS of people in harm's way for personal reasons.\n\n>duty ethics might prioritize helping a family member or helping someone in your vicinity\n\nBut there's two problems with this: \n\n1) Any system of ethics that tells you can save a single persons at the expense of an entire universe of people is simply bunk. Valuing our family more than other people is selfishness, and us as rational agents should be able to undersand our person feelings of attachment don't make a person more valuable than anyone else.\n\n2) Mile's isn't even saving his dad. Once Miles breaks teh canon event, everyone in that world INCLUDING Captain Miles will die. So Mile's isn't even choosing between his father and everyone else. Until Miles has a concerete plan, he's just choosing between his dad dying, and his dad dying along with a billion other people.\n\n>would the doctor be wrong for internally hooking his father up to machines that would slightly extend his life and end several others, instead of letting him die sooner and naturally? \n\nOf course he would be wrong, because he's valuing his dad's life as more important for no other reason than his own feelings about him.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r8sq7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ra7em",
                    "author": "brainking111",
                    "body": "The universe dying and cannon events cannot really be proven , it could be just coincidences not Linked to being a cop are at play , with cannon events you are saying that freewill doesn't exist because the universe said so. It's selfish yes but neither Miles or Miguel O'Hara know what miles effects on the multiverse are and he is even contradictory with the fact that he claims the Miles isn't Spiderman if he isn't than he has no effect at n the multiverse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rz1gv",
                    "author": "TvManiac5",
                    "body": "There is one problem with this idea. We don't factually know if canon events are actual things. In fact, the very idea that Captain Stacy quit his job and thereby can keep exisiting in the multiverse without any issue, proves that it is likely not a thing. If the system is as perfectly organized as Miguel says it is, this shouldn't have happened. \n\nAnd I know that the big hole in Pvatir's reality seems like proof, but that could have easily been caused by Spot tampering with the dimension warping technology that gave him a power boost. \n\nMiguel just assumes that Miles is the one who caused it and that it fits his canon event theory, because he needs it to be true and him to be the twisted hero due to his own survivor's guilt. \n\nI think that will be the main twist of Beyond the Spiderverse. Not that Gwen somehow found a loophole, but that the entire reality Miguel believed in, is a lie. \n\nAnd if you want another proof, Earth 42 lost its Spiderman and all its canon events as a result. There isn't a single multiversal instability in it, same with Miles's earth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1sztb6",
                    "author": "ok_ill_shut_up",
                    "body": "It ain't that deep.  It's basically the same as Captain America's \"we don't trade lives\" philosophy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1voycx",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "That's silly coming from a man who fought in a war.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1sztb6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1tbujs",
                    "author": "IceBlue",
                    "body": "No he isn't. He's assuming that he's the reason behind the collapsing dimension that caused his second family to disappear but there's zero evidence of that being true. What canon event did he prevent from happening? The Miguel from that dimension died on his own. He just took over for him. No one questions if there's any other thing that could have caused the collapse which is weird considering Peter is considered one of the smarter people in Marvel universe and they literally have a society of Peters. He creates a society of spider people that constantly risk breaking canon events by having the spider people away from their universe and goes out of his way to stop Miles from stopping the Spot from killing his dad. So what was Gwen's goal in Miles' universe? Wasn't it to stop the Spot? He punishes her for not stopping the Spot and tries to stop Miles from stopping the Spot. It makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1usz14",
                    "author": "Cyberpunk2077isTrash",
                    "body": "Something someone pointed out to me is that Miguel is fundamentally mistaken about the nature of Spider-Man. \n\nLooking at Miguel and his inner circle, Jessica Drew and Ben Riley.\n\nNone of them really follow the rules Miguel set and yet their universes arent being distorted.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1vmhyv",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "How do you mean?",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1usz14"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16os7ne",
                    "author": "Raspint",
                    "body": "First off, spoilers for 'Across the Spiderverse,' and I'll be assuming that you are familiar with the film as I discuss it. And second off, what a fantastic movie. \n\nAnyway, it seems that not only miles, but the filmmakers of 'Across' seem to think that Miguel O'Hara is mistaken. He's filmed as a big, scary angry man, and not only does Miles disagree with him, but so do does Gwen and all the gang from the the first movie decide to go help Miles (Penny, Nicholas Cage, Peter, etc). And there's a scene where Miguel says  'We are the good guys' however it really came across that he was trying to convince himself.\n\nBut think about what Miguel is actually trying to do, and what his argument for it is:\n\n1) He's trying to let Captain Morales die, and prevent Miles from saving his father.\n\n2) He's doing the above because if Miles does save  his dear old dad, than *everyone in Mile's dimension will die*.\n\nNow let's look at Miles:\n\nA) He's trying to save his father from being murdered by spot.\n\nOkay, understandable, but what will happen if he does that? Well, as far as we know, this will happen:\n\nB) If Captain Morales doesn't die, every single person in that world (Captain Morales included) will die, with the possibility that this will destabilize the multiverse and possibly kill an unfathomable number of people.\n\nYes I know about that silly loophole they are setting up, with the whole giving up the cop job as a lawyer like way to get out of the canon event. But the problem is that **Miles has no idea about this possibility**. Gwen is the one who happens upon this, not Miles. Right now, Miles's plan is simply:\n\n\"Save my Dad and then prevent the death of everyone in my dimension through... hope? The power of friendship?\"\n\nLike, if you're going to do something that could potentially kill every person in the universe, you should have at least a pretty good idea of how you are going to prevent that outcome.\n\nAs of right now, Miles Morales is being reckless, emotional-driven and extremely selfish. But Miguel is supposed to be in the wrong here? Because Miguel has seen two examples (his own timeline, and the one with Pavitr Prabhakar) the enormous  danger of disrupting a canon event. The worst thing that Miguel does is he's a dick about it after Miles starts showing off how goddamn selfish he is going to be.\n\nBut if you are trying to prevent someone from letting their own selfish desires put an unfathomable amount of human lives at risk, loosing your cool by just yelling at someone and saying mean things to them, is not a big deal.\n\nYes, I know that in the sequel they will find some way to make everything work out and Miles will save his dad and make everything okay because it is a movie. But my point is that *right now*, given the available info to Miles, he is being incredibly dangerous and selfish in a way that is so heinous he could easily be framed as a villain if you just switched your perspective. \n\nBecause this isn't even a trolly problem. It's:\n\nA) Either one person dies\n\nor\n\nB) The train kills every single other person plus the person from case A anyway.",
                    "date": "2023-09-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Oscar Issacs's character in the new Spiderman movie is morally correct",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16os7ne/cmv_oscar_issacss_character_in_the_new_spiderman/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1xm1d0",
                    "author": "Mindless-Situation51",
                    "body": "Morally correct if he's right, but his world view is flawed and it's hinted at that he's wrong. Like if disrupting canon events were as disastrous as he made it out to be, then why does Mile's universe still exist? His entire existence, as Miguel has stated so many times, is an anomaly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16os7ne"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16pfgca",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qlnzv",
                "author": "HarpyBane",
                "body": "Your third point directly says you have gained insight into how women perceive men by reading women\u2019s works? Isn\u2019t that alone enough of a reason to read stories written by women- because you\u2019ve gained insight in the past. \n\nStrictly speaking, do authors *need* to do anything besides put words on a page? But that\u2019s a pretty low bar.\n\nTo improve reading and writing, it\u2019s recommended to participate in both. And reading new sources, new takes, and new formats can often assist with both creativity, and execution.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16pfgca"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qnad7",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "I think reading anything is worthwhile.  Yes, I gained insight when reading from a woman author, but I could have read something else and gotten insight there too.\n\n> And reading new sources, new takes, and new formats can often assist with both creativity, and execution.\n\nHmmm, this is a good point.  Maybe creativity overall gets better with a wider pool to draw from.  Like helping you think outside the box more.  !delta",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qlnzv"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qndzt",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HarpyBane ([13\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/HarpyBane)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qnad7"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkbqf",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nThere is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlf0x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nI don't think complaining is that fun, so I don't see this as an upside.\n\n> There is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.\n\nHow so?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkbqf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkfxj",
                    "author": "LetterheadNo1752",
                    "body": ">These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work\n\nNo one here has read your work either. Sounds like you should seek the opinions of people who have",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qll3i",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Eventually that is my plan, but not confident or finished enough in my stuff to share it yet.\n\nThe purpose of this post is for me to understand the people who give the advice without even having read the work.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkfxj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkg6j",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\n>My view is that I have no need to do this. \n\nI don't....\n\nAny author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nA director who said they only watched long fantasy movies made by men is a shitty director, I guarantee, because they don't understand MOVIES and have an extremely limited view.\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nThe reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nTwo words: vagina purse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ql8zw",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\nNot consciously, but I can tell by their name and picture usually.  My big example here being Harry Potter I know is written by a women and I read that, whereas male authors I know I read are Tolkien, GRRM, Robert Jordan, Jonathan Stroud.\n\n> Any author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nWhy does it need to be broad?  If I only want to write one genre, why not just read that genre and try to master it instead of going wide?\n\n> Two words: vagina purse.\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\n> The reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nHow can they know that when people give advice without having even read the work?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkg6j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkmhp",
                    "author": "turndownforwomp",
                    "body": "If you\u2019re perfectly happy to create unrealistic characters, what exactly would make you change your view on this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlq9x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Not sure.  But this sub always surprises me with new viewpoints that are valid so I think it is possible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkmhp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlax2",
                    "author": "Fact875",
                    "body": "Setting aside whether you are able to write women well or not, would you deny that it's probably going to help you more as a writer, all other things being equal, for a writer to read work written by authors from a variety of backgrounds, perspectives and identities, as opposed to only reading authors with more or less the same identity?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qmad5",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I guess it depends on your goals.  If you want to appeal to a wider audience it might help.  But if you want to get one genre or specific niche done well then focusing on that niche seems more valuable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qlax2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qm7po",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": ">My view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\nIsn't that the same view you'd hold if you did, in fact, need to? The argument is that you don't have a sense for the different voice women bring to writing, in other words that you're unaware of the differences; your premise is that there are no differences. If there were, and you were unaware of them ... how would you know?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnyne",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "True.  I could be missing something that I need without knowing that I need it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qm7po"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qngs2",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "Firstly - I assume that you want to create works of art that people of all genders can appreciate, and writing women that come across as realistic is a big part of that. So with that goal in mind, lets look at your 3 reasonings:\n\n1. Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends. Women in certain cultures are socialized in certain ways and often share a lot of similar experiences. If you completely miss or misrepresent those experiences, you will damage immersion for a good amount of readers.\n\n2. Interactions with women are good to help, but they can only give you so much. Most women act differently when not around any men, or when not around anyone at all. And you cannot read minds. Reading what women actually write about themselves and their experiences can help give a much more well rounded view on writing them.\n\n3. This seems to be the big one. If you don't care about writing realistic female characters, of course you shouldn't care about learning what realistic is. But I do think that this will hurt your writing more than you realize. Generally society has a male point of view as the default for most media. There has been a ton of books/movies/plays and so on that give the male perspective on women. So even if you find a woman's perspective on men interesting, most women are not likely to find the reverse something they are looking for. And honestly, I wouldn't find it interesting either, I've read enough of men writing women without understanding them for a lifetime.\n\nI obviously don't know if this is something you actually struggle with, but it seems like at least trying some female authors will give you a much better perspective to say whether you actually need this help or not. Maybe you write women fine, and those authors won't tell you much that's new. Maybe you don't and this can be a wake up call. But it's going to be hard for you to say without ever trying to read them, so I'd say just go for it!\n\nPlus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qrybv",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends.\n\nIf you can convince of this, I think the rest of your points make a lot more sense.  My first reaction on this point is that isn't this dangerous territory to think on, that it will lead to stereotyping?  But if we can get past that, could you give some examples of experiences commonly held by women that would change them to be different from a man (personality wise).  I guess this is new for me because the old advice I used to go off was: treat women like people; implying that people are all the same just with different body parts.\n\n> Plus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.\n\nI don't doubt it, I just feel like there would be as many undervalued male authors in history.  (my favorite author is an undervalued male writer IMO)",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qngs2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnpkv",
                    "author": "Fightlife45",
                    "body": "They should just read good works, many of which are written by women, such as frankenstein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qs8sr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "This seems more of an argument to read good works, than to read works specifically by women, no?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnpkv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnthl",
                    "author": "PucaGanAinm",
                    "body": "I'm sorry, but any writer who thinks its not valuable to read broadly, in this case the herculean task to....include women, is going to be an absolutely dogshit writer. \n\n>By reading a novel written by a women\n\nYou expand your horizons.\n\n>I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYou're never in their head. \n\n> writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nYes it is. We can tell, and it comes off terribly. \n\n>Readers still get to see how that author views women\n\nIf you're writing fiction you're not writing what *you* think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\n>if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nFrom this post, I can say with absolute certainty you are one of them but you just haven't realised it.\n\nI know this all sounds harsh, but this knock back to reality is what every writer needs at some point. You are not as good as you think, especially if you can't see the benefit of broad reading material.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtnzr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> in this case the herculean task to....include women\n\nAgain, to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to read stories by women.  I have no issues with reading stories by women.  I'm just trying to understand why I should go out of my way to make sure the authors I read are women.\n\n> You're never in their head.\n\nTrue, but they express their thoughts with words and facial expressions and mannerisms.  I mean, they could be lying, but isn't that a thought I shouldn't be indulging in - the false trope that women lie?\n\n> If you're writing fiction you're not writing what you think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\nIn theory, but really its the authors story and their voice telling it.  If two authors wrote the same character, there would be differences.\n\n> I know this all sounds harsh\n\nYeah, but I suppose I opened that bridge by making the post somewhat personally focused.  So, no worries, trying to understand where this view comes from.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnthl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qntua",
                    "author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
                    "body": "But... women write good books? Why wouldn't you want to read them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qu0uh",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm not saying to avoid books written by women.  I loved Harry Potter, Twilight, and I can appreciate the good writing of Fonda Lee even if the story wasn't up my alley.\n\nThe advice I get is to go out of my way to make sure I am reading more woman authors, meaning skipping over male authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qntua"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qo0pi",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I find it strange that you would purposefully written books by just one demographic. Do you purposefully avoid women authors? Why?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quavq",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you purposefully avoid women authors\n\nI don't think so.  At least, not consciously.  I pick books based on recommendations and book covers/summaries.  That said, the vast majority of books I've read have been by males.  I'm not sure if thats chance, male authors being more prominent, or maybe subconsciously I am avoiding female authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qo0pi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qoer8",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nWhat advice would you give these authors if their intention is to write accurate, realistic portrayals of men? Would a suggestion (among others) that they read examples of men written by men really be that outlandish?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quy8c",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "No, that would be reasonable.  But I would only give that advice to those specific authors, I wouldn't go around telling all women to read more books by men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qoer8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qossq",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a woman, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nIt's a valid observation that there isn't a monolithic \"way women think,\" but it's fallacious to conclude that reading a woman's work only offers insight into that particular woman. Isn't literature often a reflection of broader cultural, societal, and historical contexts? By reading works written by women, one exposes oneself to a range of perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked in a male-dominated literary canon.\n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism.\n\nReal-life interactions are limited to one's subjective experiences. Isn't it a rather narrow view to rely solely on personal experiences and eschew broader literary insights? How can you be certain that your representation is comprehensive and not riddled with unconscious biases?\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nWhy not? Isn't perpetuating one's personal fantasy potentially harmful, especially if it reinforces stereotypes or misrepresents half the population? Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nIsn't it presumptuous to believe that one can adequately write \"realistic\" women characters without ever engaging in literature written by women themselves?\n\n>Also, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\nIf you acknowledge the value in reading stories written by women, then isn't it logically inconsistent to dismiss the potential benefits of male authors engaging with these works, especially if their goal is to write well-rounded female characters?\n\nYour argument hinges on the premise of understanding women through personal interactions alone. But isn't literature, at its core, an exploration of the human condition, transcending personal experience? If you truly aspire to be a comprehensive author, why would you willingly limit your sources of inspiration and understanding? Isn't the purpose of literature to challenge and expand our worldviews? Why then, would you shy away from broadening your literary horizons?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1yxr",
                    "author": "hominumdivomque",
                    "body": ">Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\nI agree with everything in your comment except this. *Literature* (speaking of fiction mind you, I don't mean works of scholarly non-fiction) doesn't have any responsibility. It's an art form. It's purpose is to express artistic beauty by means of human creativity, and it doesn't need to challenge or inform our view of the world to accomplish that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qossq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqe3d",
                    "author": "ambientLemon",
                    "body": "Its typical for a lot of writers to do research on something before the write about it. It doesn't have to necessarily be reading things written by women authors, it could be other types of media as well. \n\nDoing proper research can be the difference between finding that one detail that brings a character to life, and the one detail that makes a character inauthentic. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different\n\nRight, but there might be value in researching a specific character. If you have a character who is an intern in the fashion industry, it might make sense to read \"The Devil Wears Prada\" or whatever. Even if its just to get a sense of what your story is going to avoid. \n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. \n\nThis can be really helpful, but depending on the nature of the friendships and interactions there might be a lot of stuff they're not telling you. \n\nYou're also seeing them through the filter of your own perspective and biases, so you might really only understand your side to the story. It might be enough information for some stories, but not others.   \n\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nIt might not be? It depends on the genre and who you want your audience to be.  \nBut I think this is a poor thing to bank on.\n\nAt the very least maybe get proof readers early and often",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqon9",
                    "author": "somuchbitch",
                    "body": "> if a male author wants **realistic characters,** and is having trouble writing women.\n\nHow would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\n>real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYour interactions are only informed by your POV then. Do you only write men in the first person?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qybs2",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> How would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\nBy getting feedback on his writing.  If people say his women don't across as realistic, he could then go read books by women.  Though, I'd also say he could just talk with women, interview them, get their thoughts.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qqon9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtmu4",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Did you as an author just really claim, in effect that: \"I don't need to know how other people see the world in order to write well?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r2819",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I don't see where I claimed that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qtmu4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qupgn",
                    "author": "Izawwlgood",
                    "body": "Peter Brett wrote an excellent fantasy series about demons and the people who fight them. It's a lot of fun. It's got a ton of action, decent politics, a cool magic system, and some strong female protagonists.\n\nThe way the dude writes female perspective is... cringey and weird. There's a whole set of sections about teen sex that's pretty weird. I ended up skipping a lot of it, and not because I'm prude. \n\nI don't know if he spoke to women while writing this stuff, but it sure doesn't seem he did.\n\nWriting is about representing new perspectives and enticing readers with good stories. You can't do that if you suck at representing women. One way to learn about women is to read their stories.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quyhv",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "> There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women\n\nThere may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nThese differences aren't purely or even mostly due to some inherent biological difference in female vs male brains, but because of the real differences in how each navigate the world and how the world perceives and treats them due to being male or female.\n\nThis may include specific details that only a woman might notice because it isn't within the average man's experience.\n\n> I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nYou use real life interactions which means that your experience of women is limited to how women behave around you, a man, and what women are willing to share with you, a man. You have no knowledge of how women behave around other women in the absence of men, or when they are simply by themselves. And even in the situations which you do experience, it is only ever from an external perspective. You have no idea how they actually perceive you, you only know how you perceive them perceiving you.\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nIf you simply don't care, you don't care. However it is an advantage to a male writer for his female audience to regard him as an author that actually gets women, rather than yet another man who simply writes tropes. If you're satisfied with being the latter, then so be it, but the advice you are receiving is intended to help you not be that guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4lbr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> There may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think which is more cohesive than not, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nI'm not sold on this.  Maybe if you gave me an example?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1quyhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qw463",
                    "author": "jstnpotthoff",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThis is the biggest problem I have with your view. Your real-life interactions with most women are likely superficial--you understand how they interact *with you*. But you're likely unaware of their inner monologues, their priorities, and their true opinions. Everything you know is colored by your presence. Everybody has insecurities and hidden desires unknown to even the people closest to them. If you're writing women simply as a prop for your protagonist, this is fine. But if you want to make your women characters more realistically three-dimensional, it could help your understanding of these things immensely to read female authors who are not afraid to show their insecurities and innermost thoughts.\n\nThe End of Everything by Megan Abbott comes to mind.\n\nFear of Flying by Erica Jong, Postcards From the Edge by Carrie Fisher, and anything by Lionel Shriver...it also helps that they're all incredible writers.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxe3s",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nOf course every writer draws on their personal experience, the point is that reading someone's writing offers something that these IRL experiences don't. Principally and obviously your IRL experiences are merely your own and filtered through your perspective, life experience, etc., meaning that the other person's perspective is lacking. \n\nI'm sure you can think of examples from your own life where you and someone else have had different perceptions of the same exact experience or interaction.\n\nFor example, last night I was walking home alone. It wasn't late at all but was after dark and there weren't many people around. A guy about my age approached me and then asked me which direction a specific street is before continuing on. To him I'm sure it was a rather mundane exchange. However, because he was a bigger masc presenting guy, and because I'm a small physically weak and obviously gay guy, as soon as I noticed he was approaching me my mind raced to determine whether he was a potential threat. We had completely different experiences despite the same real-life interaction. If that guy went home and happened to read a story I wrote about that experience, he'd learn a lot and come away with a much more accurate idea of my perspective compared to only forming the idea based on his experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r8ju9",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think there is a good chance he knew what you were feeling, rather than thinking it was mundane.  When scared, we tend to show it through body-language and actions.  For example, if someone is constantly looking away, or trying to end the conversation, I can deduce they want to get out of there.  Fear can also show by a startled jump, or frozen stop.  All of these things can be observed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qxe3s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxpjd",
                    "author": "LurkerFailsLurking",
                    "body": "1) The logical extension of your argument is that there's no reason for an author to ever read anything by anyone but themselves, which is obviously untrue. While being well read doesn't guarantee that you will be a better writer, it unquestionably helps.\n\n2) For any author there are topics, ideas, perspectives, styles, etc that they are more comfortable with and tend to rely on in their writing. Authors who are comfortable writing about similar topics, etc tend to have other things in common too. Among other things, there are demographic patterns in the distribution of topics, etc that writers are comfortable with. This does not mean that literally all writers in certain demographic groups are the same, it only acknowledges there are common tendencies.\n\n2, corollary) Expanding the available breadth of topics, perspectives, styles, and ideas at your disposal makes you a better writer. One way to expand these \"tools\" at your disposal is to read a wide range of works. One way to read a wider range of works is to read a wider demographic range of authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0660",
                    "author": "cyrusposting",
                    "body": "\\>There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. \n\nIf you were writing a book about China you would probably read a couple books by Chinese authors because while Chinese people are not all the same, they do have a different culture and you need some understanding of that culture to write Chinese characters. To avoid getting the opinions and beliefs of one person, you would probably want to read a lot of books by Chinese authors, watch Chinese films, research China, and talk to Chinese people. \n\nThis is not really disputed by the statement that \"people are different\" because one of the things that makes people different is their cultural experience. If you have one Chinese character in your book and he does not speak Chinese or behave in any way that is distinctly Chinese, that's fine. People are different. But if 49.6% of people in your book are Chinese and they all act like French people(their food preferences are all French, their clothing is French, their favorite authors are French, their parents expect French things from them, and their stories about their childhoods all take place in France), you're getting to a point where your lack of knowledge is pressing against reality and you are missing opportunities to use culture to characterize people.\n\nWomen are not a different culture than men, not in the way Chinese culture is different from French culture. But Women do experience their cultures differently, and so to a lesser degree than the difference between Chinese people and French people, women are different than men \\*even assuming\\* that all other things about their life experience are exactly the same as those of men. \n\nWe know that this assumption isn't true. But even if we were to assume that the only difference between men and women is that women experience their culture differently than men, we can assume logically that it is a good idea to try to immerse ourselves in their cultural experience to understand them better, for all the same reasons we would do that for Chinese people. The best way to do that is to read books by women, watch films by women, research the things that make their lives different, and talk to them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0bhz",
                    "author": "Mindless_Wrap1758",
                    "body": "There's the benefit of seeing how the other half lives and thinks.  There are fundamental differences between cultures, genders, sexes, and sexual orientations. These should be respected and loved without cultural relativism or a similar claim that we should have gender blindness, the way people tout colorblindness as the cure for racism. In my view, we should aim for an unmarginalized and Rawlsian (equitable) society. \n\nOur shared humanity is what matters the most and on that level we can empathize with anyone. Some men grew up in a mostly female household or had a strong relationship with their mother. So some of us have a deeper well to draw on. But there's also the fact that these people inhabited roles in our lives. I was very close to my mother and lived with her almost 30 years. But I can't escape that we were always mother and son and I haven't even lived half of her lifespan. As much as we shared, there are important elements of our lives that we didn't share with each other.\n\nThen there's also the fact for many their gender or whatever isn't as central to their identity as other people's are. I assume that as someone who has suicidal depression most of my life, I could relate more to Sylvia Plath's semi autobiographical book than a woman who never had a bad day in her life. But the opposite could be argued because gender played a great role in her life. Or you as a writer could see that as being the most central aspect of her life.\n\nA famous female studio bassist said the note is either good or not, not masculine or feminine. So the quality of an author is paramount. Queer author Alison Bechdel came up with the Bechdel test. She asked how many works always have a woman talking to a man or if she's talking to a woman she's talking about a man. The same can go the other way, but I wouldn't doubt more great books would fail her test than a similar test applied to male characters. There's no uniform female or gay or whatever experience. But there's more than meets the eye that can be missed by people not in a group.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rbubf",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> So some of us have a deeper well to draw on.\n\nI think it would be a rare exception to not have women connections in real life.  Most people had a mother growing up, most men end up in romantic relationships with women, many men have sisters, aunts, grandmas...Women are in school and the workplace now-a-days.  To not have a deep enough well to craft a good woman character seems unlikely IMO.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r0bhz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1k85",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "You need to read female authors because they are a critical part of the canon.  You can't just substitute Mary Shelley for someone else, if you're going to be a writer you should have read authors that include women such as Mary Shelley, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, George Eliot, and Emily Dickinson.  It might be okay to have missed Josephine Tey, Isabel Allende, Agatha Christie, or Maya Angelou - but if you have missed all of them just because they're women, I don't see how you can write well.\n\nSo yeah, authors (male or female) should have read novels written by women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1ovc",
                    "author": "toooooold4this",
                    "body": "Women write robust female characters because we have things to say about womanhood and want our varied points of view to be center stage rather than a side character or romantic interest. \n\nThe books you mentioned (Harry Potter and Twilight) are giving you a very narrow insight into how women think. \n\nWhen men write women's characters, they write them from their own POV. When you're writing a female character from your interactions with women, it's still from your POV. When you read characters' words and behaviors, those viewpoints are processed a different way. You step into their bodies and minds.\n\nOne of the things male writers do for female characters is write them the way men see them or want to see them, so women often find themselves admiring their own bodies in the mirror or dressing in heels to do basic tasks around the house or wearing clothes that are too small to show off their figure (which doesn't do anything but make us uncomfortable and lumpy, btw).\n\nAs a writer, I would think you would want to read broadly to get as many voices as possible in your head.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4p2y",
                    "author": "Mysterious-Maybe-184",
                    "body": "I man",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rzj87",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r4p2y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rcp0x",
                    "author": "DreamingSilverDreams",
                    "body": ">Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nStatistically speaking, the likelihood of you not being able to write a good female character is extremely high just because you are a man. The absolute majority of female characters written by men are terrible. Moreover, these terrible characters are supported by a long, time-honoured tradition. In addition, literature (especially fantasy and sci-fi that you seem to like) geared toward men tends to have very few well-written female characters. \n\nConsidering all of these, it is normal to assume that you, being a man, lack understanding of women, their thoughts, and motivations. Thus, you receive advice to read female authors.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nThere is no 'a way women think'. However, there are shared experiences that all (or almost all) women have. Some of these experiences are related to biology, e.g. the start of menstruation or physical changes during puberty or pregnancy. Some experiences are cultural and limited to specific societies, but still, all women in those societies have similar experiences. For example, there can be social pressure to always look good, smile, and express an overall gentle and cheerful attitude. \n\nMen do not share these experiences. Their biology is different. They are socialised differently. They face different social pressures and expectations.\n\n A lot of men have no idea about uniquely female experiences and challenges. A female author may introduce these to men. This is why reading books written by women is important. It is a window into a world that many men not only never experience, but do not even suspect to exist.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThe limitation of this approach is that a) you see only what women want to show you (I assume you are not a stalker) and b) you see only what you can and want to see.\n\nEvery person has multiple faces or personas that they use to interact with other people. It is extremely unlikely for anyone to see all these personas even if the two people are close. Think about your mother. You are, probably, very familiar with her 'mother' persona. However, do you know her 'lover' persona that she uses with her lover? Or her 'friend' persona that she uses with her friends? Or her 'boss' persona that dominates her work hours? Or whatever other personas your mother has? And, of course, as many other commenters mentioned you have no access to your mother's inner thoughts. So, while you may attempt to document her in various environments and interactions, you will never be able to see the inner workings of her mind.\n\nIt is also unreasonable to expect that someone would share all their reasoning and motivation with you. Even someone, who is extremely cooperative and can fully discard social norms and conventions and talk freely about any topic, does not understand themselves fully. A lot of things you would hear are rationalisations and justifications, not the actual motives and reasons.\n\nYou, yourself, are also a great limitation. As someone who lacks relevant experiences, you are very likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, under- or over-empathise a lot of details in your interactions with women. You are also very likely to hold a number of cultural biases and stereotypes that would affect your interactions and their interpretations.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality.\n\nIt is not a big deal when one author does it. It is a huge deal when the majority of authors do it. And this is precisely the situation we are in. The majority of female characters in books, films, plays, etc. are representations of male fantasies. They have nothing to do with real women but they do affect real women by creating expectations and unwanted social pressures.\n\nIf most books, films, or plays depict women as insignificant decorative elements existing for the pleasure of male readers and male characters how would women be seen in a society? How men would see women?\n\n&#x200B;\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThis is a very bad comparison. Most books you've read, probably, have decent male characters. Therefore, inaccurate depictions of men feel novel and refreshing.\n\nMost female characters, on the other hand, are poorly written. It is neither enjoyable nor interesting to see yet another terrible female character. It is annoying, frustrating, and upsetting. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\rThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\r\n\nIMO, every author should strive to create relatable characters. Relatable =/= realistic. Most protagonists in fantasy and sci-fi are not realistic but they are relatable. Most female characters are not relatable because many authors prefer their personal fantasies to real women and the rest are just bad at writing women. This is especially prevalent in male-oriented genres.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rd13h",
                    "author": "FongYuLan",
                    "body": "As an author, you should read a wide range of books and be able to duplicate their voices as an exercise, and maintain your own writing voice for your own work. If you can do that, you\u2019re a master writer with control over words.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rdqoa",
                    "author": "Theevildothatido",
                    "body": "> 1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nWhen I was much younger I read some note by a television critic who claimed about *Ally McBeal* that David E. Kelley, the writer \u201cunderstood how women think\u201d. At the time I considered this a ridiculous statement, for indeed, there was no singular way \u201chow women think\u201d and in fact quite sexist.\n\nI still believe that but I also realized interacting with some people that there's more nuance to it. While I don't believe there is such a thing as \u201cunderstanding how women think\u201d, there is definitely such a thing as \u201cnot understanding how women think\u201d, or any group really, which is more so persons who believe \u201cwomen think\u201d in a certain way and it's absolutely wrong as in no woman, nay person on the planet realistically thinks like that or at least a very small number.\n\nPerhaps that is what the critic thought. I first construed that comment as \u201cAlly McBeal acts how women act\u201d as in the critic thought they all acted the same and like Ally McBeal, but perhaps it was more so \u201cFinally, a character that acts like a plausible woman that could exist.\u201d, not necessarily that they all think like that.\n\nHowever, I also don't really think that reading such fiction actually leads people to gain a new perspective either. People draw the conclusions they want to, and I find that people who \u201cdon't understand how women think\u201d in general simply \u201cdon't understand how people think\u201d because they want the world to be in a certain way it's not. I've had some discussions with such persons at least and they read such fiction but simply drew absolutely bizarre conclusions from it but about humans in general and the characters therein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rvc8l",
                    "author": "No-Development4601",
                    "body": "I mean, the idea that you \"don't need to read works by over half of the current authors\" is a very weird take to have. Women are (by about 0.5%) the majority of authors currently. I think if you're not reading books by women, you're reading only within narrow categories that are male dominated and/or purposely avoiding women.  \n\nGenerally authors benefit from exposure to a variety of points of views, to allow them to craft more interesting stories. If your story doesn't have anything that surprises or grabs the reader's attention they will put the book down and forget to pick it back up. This is why a lot of authors don't succeed in selling their stories until they're older (40+) - they need life experiences to have information to mine to come up with an interesting and coherent story.\n\nWomen don't all \"think\" the same way, certainly not across cultures or age-ranges. A teenage girl in the US wouldn't have a lot in common with an elderly woman in rural India. And women are all individuals, but they tend to have an overlapping set of shared experiences. \n\nOne thing you may want to consider if you want to publish, is -- how many readers do you want to attract? If you write a fantasy women in a way women find offensive, you can kiss 64% of the market goodbye. Women are much more likely to buy books than men . Therefore you should try not to write female characters women find offensive if you want commercial success.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1s0zc7",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "One of the most important aspects of a lot of book is having interesting characters who people relate to who act as wish fulfilment for people. This is a major factor behind the success of books. People read about heroes who are living lives they want to live, with friends they want to have and enemies they want to crush. \n\nPart of the value of reading female written books is getting a better grasp on that. You can do that with in depth interviews as well, but reading is a bit easier and more reliable. \n\nOne thing that is often tricky is getting right people who embrace some aspect of femininity and reject others. As a man, do you know which aspects of femininity women tend to fantasize about? Do you know what they want to reject? Do you know what pressures women fantasize about overcoming?\n\nThe success or failure in portraying these things is often very nuanced and so finding good examples helps. Let me give a few examples. \n\n1. Encanto was partly very popular due to Luisa, a more muscular and bulky woman who also was quite feminine in ways, and was holding up the family and carrying their burdens. A very common female fantasy is being appreciated for doing everything for their families enough that others help up and they can rest. She was more popular than Isabela because less women relate to being a perfectionist whose life needs a bit of chaos. \n\n2. Hermione was popular because a lot of women are nerdy outcasts who read a lot, study hard, and aren't appreciated for their intelligence and helpfulness, and she looked badass when she tried at the dance. \n\n3. Brandon Sanderson did Jasnah Kholin very well because he extensively interviewed women on how they saw themselves and atheism and tied it together into a badass, murderous scholar who looks fantastic and feminine while doing it. \n\nYou can't really get a very detailed understanding of the archetypes of women that women tend to fantasize about by observing women and limited experience. Commercial success is heavily about crafting a friend group for readers of men and women who they like fantasizing about being and being friends with, and so while every woman thinks differently, understanding what sorts of people are popular and unpopular among women helps a lot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1sw4au",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "idk, I feel like what people like is going to vary from person to person, more than groups wanting one type.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1s0zc7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1t244w",
                    "author": "TheBookishFoodie",
                    "body": "No one needs to read anything they don\u2019t want to.\n\nAnd if your audience is incel virgins living in their mom\u2019s basement, it would behoove you not to do so. Just keep writing women characters who admire their tits in the mirror and then boobily boob down the stairs. Maybe you\u2019ll even get lucky and Nick Adams will pay you to ghostwrite his tweets about eating at Hooters with his alpha boys.\n\nNow if you want to be a good writer, yes, you\u2019ll need to read women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1tt3e4",
                    "author": "tbigaming",
                    "body": "A lot if people have talked abiut the expierence of reading and the influence it has on you. Yet as a fellow writer I feel like from a linguistic perspective and working on the way you write there is a noticable differnece between how women write and how men write. Not opening yourself up to this you would mis a lot of insight of how you write and how being a man influences this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16pfgca",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qmcci",
                "author": "HeWhoShitsWithPhone",
                "body": "On some fundamental level you don't have to have ever read a book to write one. However I imagine if you are trying to be a good writer you probably want to as broad a selection of writing as possible. Reading a bunch of books by the same type of writer about the same themes would not be too helpful. This could be a different gender or culture or nationality. It is hard to imagine that this would do anything but help your writing.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16pfgca"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qodct",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Yeah this is a good point, gave another user a delta for this around the same time you posted, so  !delta",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qmcci"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qojag",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/HeWhoShitsWithPhone ([120\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/HeWhoShitsWithPhone)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qodct"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkbqf",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nThere is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlf0x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nI don't think complaining is that fun, so I don't see this as an upside.\n\n> There is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.\n\nHow so?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkbqf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkfxj",
                    "author": "LetterheadNo1752",
                    "body": ">These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work\n\nNo one here has read your work either. Sounds like you should seek the opinions of people who have",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qll3i",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Eventually that is my plan, but not confident or finished enough in my stuff to share it yet.\n\nThe purpose of this post is for me to understand the people who give the advice without even having read the work.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkfxj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkg6j",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\n>My view is that I have no need to do this. \n\nI don't....\n\nAny author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nA director who said they only watched long fantasy movies made by men is a shitty director, I guarantee, because they don't understand MOVIES and have an extremely limited view.\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nThe reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nTwo words: vagina purse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ql8zw",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\nNot consciously, but I can tell by their name and picture usually.  My big example here being Harry Potter I know is written by a women and I read that, whereas male authors I know I read are Tolkien, GRRM, Robert Jordan, Jonathan Stroud.\n\n> Any author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nWhy does it need to be broad?  If I only want to write one genre, why not just read that genre and try to master it instead of going wide?\n\n> Two words: vagina purse.\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\n> The reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nHow can they know that when people give advice without having even read the work?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkg6j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkmhp",
                    "author": "turndownforwomp",
                    "body": "If you\u2019re perfectly happy to create unrealistic characters, what exactly would make you change your view on this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlq9x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Not sure.  But this sub always surprises me with new viewpoints that are valid so I think it is possible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkmhp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlax2",
                    "author": "Fact875",
                    "body": "Setting aside whether you are able to write women well or not, would you deny that it's probably going to help you more as a writer, all other things being equal, for a writer to read work written by authors from a variety of backgrounds, perspectives and identities, as opposed to only reading authors with more or less the same identity?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qmad5",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I guess it depends on your goals.  If you want to appeal to a wider audience it might help.  But if you want to get one genre or specific niche done well then focusing on that niche seems more valuable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qlax2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qm7po",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": ">My view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\nIsn't that the same view you'd hold if you did, in fact, need to? The argument is that you don't have a sense for the different voice women bring to writing, in other words that you're unaware of the differences; your premise is that there are no differences. If there were, and you were unaware of them ... how would you know?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnyne",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "True.  I could be missing something that I need without knowing that I need it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qm7po"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qngs2",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "Firstly - I assume that you want to create works of art that people of all genders can appreciate, and writing women that come across as realistic is a big part of that. So with that goal in mind, lets look at your 3 reasonings:\n\n1. Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends. Women in certain cultures are socialized in certain ways and often share a lot of similar experiences. If you completely miss or misrepresent those experiences, you will damage immersion for a good amount of readers.\n\n2. Interactions with women are good to help, but they can only give you so much. Most women act differently when not around any men, or when not around anyone at all. And you cannot read minds. Reading what women actually write about themselves and their experiences can help give a much more well rounded view on writing them.\n\n3. This seems to be the big one. If you don't care about writing realistic female characters, of course you shouldn't care about learning what realistic is. But I do think that this will hurt your writing more than you realize. Generally society has a male point of view as the default for most media. There has been a ton of books/movies/plays and so on that give the male perspective on women. So even if you find a woman's perspective on men interesting, most women are not likely to find the reverse something they are looking for. And honestly, I wouldn't find it interesting either, I've read enough of men writing women without understanding them for a lifetime.\n\nI obviously don't know if this is something you actually struggle with, but it seems like at least trying some female authors will give you a much better perspective to say whether you actually need this help or not. Maybe you write women fine, and those authors won't tell you much that's new. Maybe you don't and this can be a wake up call. But it's going to be hard for you to say without ever trying to read them, so I'd say just go for it!\n\nPlus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qrybv",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends.\n\nIf you can convince of this, I think the rest of your points make a lot more sense.  My first reaction on this point is that isn't this dangerous territory to think on, that it will lead to stereotyping?  But if we can get past that, could you give some examples of experiences commonly held by women that would change them to be different from a man (personality wise).  I guess this is new for me because the old advice I used to go off was: treat women like people; implying that people are all the same just with different body parts.\n\n> Plus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.\n\nI don't doubt it, I just feel like there would be as many undervalued male authors in history.  (my favorite author is an undervalued male writer IMO)",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qngs2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnpkv",
                    "author": "Fightlife45",
                    "body": "They should just read good works, many of which are written by women, such as frankenstein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qs8sr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "This seems more of an argument to read good works, than to read works specifically by women, no?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnpkv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnthl",
                    "author": "PucaGanAinm",
                    "body": "I'm sorry, but any writer who thinks its not valuable to read broadly, in this case the herculean task to....include women, is going to be an absolutely dogshit writer. \n\n>By reading a novel written by a women\n\nYou expand your horizons.\n\n>I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYou're never in their head. \n\n> writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nYes it is. We can tell, and it comes off terribly. \n\n>Readers still get to see how that author views women\n\nIf you're writing fiction you're not writing what *you* think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\n>if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nFrom this post, I can say with absolute certainty you are one of them but you just haven't realised it.\n\nI know this all sounds harsh, but this knock back to reality is what every writer needs at some point. You are not as good as you think, especially if you can't see the benefit of broad reading material.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtnzr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> in this case the herculean task to....include women\n\nAgain, to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to read stories by women.  I have no issues with reading stories by women.  I'm just trying to understand why I should go out of my way to make sure the authors I read are women.\n\n> You're never in their head.\n\nTrue, but they express their thoughts with words and facial expressions and mannerisms.  I mean, they could be lying, but isn't that a thought I shouldn't be indulging in - the false trope that women lie?\n\n> If you're writing fiction you're not writing what you think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\nIn theory, but really its the authors story and their voice telling it.  If two authors wrote the same character, there would be differences.\n\n> I know this all sounds harsh\n\nYeah, but I suppose I opened that bridge by making the post somewhat personally focused.  So, no worries, trying to understand where this view comes from.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnthl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qntua",
                    "author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
                    "body": "But... women write good books? Why wouldn't you want to read them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qu0uh",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm not saying to avoid books written by women.  I loved Harry Potter, Twilight, and I can appreciate the good writing of Fonda Lee even if the story wasn't up my alley.\n\nThe advice I get is to go out of my way to make sure I am reading more woman authors, meaning skipping over male authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qntua"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qo0pi",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I find it strange that you would purposefully written books by just one demographic. Do you purposefully avoid women authors? Why?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quavq",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you purposefully avoid women authors\n\nI don't think so.  At least, not consciously.  I pick books based on recommendations and book covers/summaries.  That said, the vast majority of books I've read have been by males.  I'm not sure if thats chance, male authors being more prominent, or maybe subconsciously I am avoiding female authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qo0pi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qoer8",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nWhat advice would you give these authors if their intention is to write accurate, realistic portrayals of men? Would a suggestion (among others) that they read examples of men written by men really be that outlandish?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quy8c",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "No, that would be reasonable.  But I would only give that advice to those specific authors, I wouldn't go around telling all women to read more books by men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qoer8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qossq",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a woman, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nIt's a valid observation that there isn't a monolithic \"way women think,\" but it's fallacious to conclude that reading a woman's work only offers insight into that particular woman. Isn't literature often a reflection of broader cultural, societal, and historical contexts? By reading works written by women, one exposes oneself to a range of perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked in a male-dominated literary canon.\n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism.\n\nReal-life interactions are limited to one's subjective experiences. Isn't it a rather narrow view to rely solely on personal experiences and eschew broader literary insights? How can you be certain that your representation is comprehensive and not riddled with unconscious biases?\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nWhy not? Isn't perpetuating one's personal fantasy potentially harmful, especially if it reinforces stereotypes or misrepresents half the population? Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nIsn't it presumptuous to believe that one can adequately write \"realistic\" women characters without ever engaging in literature written by women themselves?\n\n>Also, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\nIf you acknowledge the value in reading stories written by women, then isn't it logically inconsistent to dismiss the potential benefits of male authors engaging with these works, especially if their goal is to write well-rounded female characters?\n\nYour argument hinges on the premise of understanding women through personal interactions alone. But isn't literature, at its core, an exploration of the human condition, transcending personal experience? If you truly aspire to be a comprehensive author, why would you willingly limit your sources of inspiration and understanding? Isn't the purpose of literature to challenge and expand our worldviews? Why then, would you shy away from broadening your literary horizons?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1yxr",
                    "author": "hominumdivomque",
                    "body": ">Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\nI agree with everything in your comment except this. *Literature* (speaking of fiction mind you, I don't mean works of scholarly non-fiction) doesn't have any responsibility. It's an art form. It's purpose is to express artistic beauty by means of human creativity, and it doesn't need to challenge or inform our view of the world to accomplish that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qossq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqe3d",
                    "author": "ambientLemon",
                    "body": "Its typical for a lot of writers to do research on something before the write about it. It doesn't have to necessarily be reading things written by women authors, it could be other types of media as well. \n\nDoing proper research can be the difference between finding that one detail that brings a character to life, and the one detail that makes a character inauthentic. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different\n\nRight, but there might be value in researching a specific character. If you have a character who is an intern in the fashion industry, it might make sense to read \"The Devil Wears Prada\" or whatever. Even if its just to get a sense of what your story is going to avoid. \n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. \n\nThis can be really helpful, but depending on the nature of the friendships and interactions there might be a lot of stuff they're not telling you. \n\nYou're also seeing them through the filter of your own perspective and biases, so you might really only understand your side to the story. It might be enough information for some stories, but not others.   \n\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nIt might not be? It depends on the genre and who you want your audience to be.  \nBut I think this is a poor thing to bank on.\n\nAt the very least maybe get proof readers early and often",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqon9",
                    "author": "somuchbitch",
                    "body": "> if a male author wants **realistic characters,** and is having trouble writing women.\n\nHow would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\n>real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYour interactions are only informed by your POV then. Do you only write men in the first person?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qybs2",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> How would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\nBy getting feedback on his writing.  If people say his women don't across as realistic, he could then go read books by women.  Though, I'd also say he could just talk with women, interview them, get their thoughts.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qqon9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtmu4",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Did you as an author just really claim, in effect that: \"I don't need to know how other people see the world in order to write well?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r2819",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I don't see where I claimed that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qtmu4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qupgn",
                    "author": "Izawwlgood",
                    "body": "Peter Brett wrote an excellent fantasy series about demons and the people who fight them. It's a lot of fun. It's got a ton of action, decent politics, a cool magic system, and some strong female protagonists.\n\nThe way the dude writes female perspective is... cringey and weird. There's a whole set of sections about teen sex that's pretty weird. I ended up skipping a lot of it, and not because I'm prude. \n\nI don't know if he spoke to women while writing this stuff, but it sure doesn't seem he did.\n\nWriting is about representing new perspectives and enticing readers with good stories. You can't do that if you suck at representing women. One way to learn about women is to read their stories.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quyhv",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "> There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women\n\nThere may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nThese differences aren't purely or even mostly due to some inherent biological difference in female vs male brains, but because of the real differences in how each navigate the world and how the world perceives and treats them due to being male or female.\n\nThis may include specific details that only a woman might notice because it isn't within the average man's experience.\n\n> I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nYou use real life interactions which means that your experience of women is limited to how women behave around you, a man, and what women are willing to share with you, a man. You have no knowledge of how women behave around other women in the absence of men, or when they are simply by themselves. And even in the situations which you do experience, it is only ever from an external perspective. You have no idea how they actually perceive you, you only know how you perceive them perceiving you.\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nIf you simply don't care, you don't care. However it is an advantage to a male writer for his female audience to regard him as an author that actually gets women, rather than yet another man who simply writes tropes. If you're satisfied with being the latter, then so be it, but the advice you are receiving is intended to help you not be that guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4lbr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> There may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think which is more cohesive than not, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nI'm not sold on this.  Maybe if you gave me an example?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1quyhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qw463",
                    "author": "jstnpotthoff",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThis is the biggest problem I have with your view. Your real-life interactions with most women are likely superficial--you understand how they interact *with you*. But you're likely unaware of their inner monologues, their priorities, and their true opinions. Everything you know is colored by your presence. Everybody has insecurities and hidden desires unknown to even the people closest to them. If you're writing women simply as a prop for your protagonist, this is fine. But if you want to make your women characters more realistically three-dimensional, it could help your understanding of these things immensely to read female authors who are not afraid to show their insecurities and innermost thoughts.\n\nThe End of Everything by Megan Abbott comes to mind.\n\nFear of Flying by Erica Jong, Postcards From the Edge by Carrie Fisher, and anything by Lionel Shriver...it also helps that they're all incredible writers.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxe3s",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nOf course every writer draws on their personal experience, the point is that reading someone's writing offers something that these IRL experiences don't. Principally and obviously your IRL experiences are merely your own and filtered through your perspective, life experience, etc., meaning that the other person's perspective is lacking. \n\nI'm sure you can think of examples from your own life where you and someone else have had different perceptions of the same exact experience or interaction.\n\nFor example, last night I was walking home alone. It wasn't late at all but was after dark and there weren't many people around. A guy about my age approached me and then asked me which direction a specific street is before continuing on. To him I'm sure it was a rather mundane exchange. However, because he was a bigger masc presenting guy, and because I'm a small physically weak and obviously gay guy, as soon as I noticed he was approaching me my mind raced to determine whether he was a potential threat. We had completely different experiences despite the same real-life interaction. If that guy went home and happened to read a story I wrote about that experience, he'd learn a lot and come away with a much more accurate idea of my perspective compared to only forming the idea based on his experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r8ju9",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think there is a good chance he knew what you were feeling, rather than thinking it was mundane.  When scared, we tend to show it through body-language and actions.  For example, if someone is constantly looking away, or trying to end the conversation, I can deduce they want to get out of there.  Fear can also show by a startled jump, or frozen stop.  All of these things can be observed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qxe3s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxpjd",
                    "author": "LurkerFailsLurking",
                    "body": "1) The logical extension of your argument is that there's no reason for an author to ever read anything by anyone but themselves, which is obviously untrue. While being well read doesn't guarantee that you will be a better writer, it unquestionably helps.\n\n2) For any author there are topics, ideas, perspectives, styles, etc that they are more comfortable with and tend to rely on in their writing. Authors who are comfortable writing about similar topics, etc tend to have other things in common too. Among other things, there are demographic patterns in the distribution of topics, etc that writers are comfortable with. This does not mean that literally all writers in certain demographic groups are the same, it only acknowledges there are common tendencies.\n\n2, corollary) Expanding the available breadth of topics, perspectives, styles, and ideas at your disposal makes you a better writer. One way to expand these \"tools\" at your disposal is to read a wide range of works. One way to read a wider range of works is to read a wider demographic range of authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0660",
                    "author": "cyrusposting",
                    "body": "\\>There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. \n\nIf you were writing a book about China you would probably read a couple books by Chinese authors because while Chinese people are not all the same, they do have a different culture and you need some understanding of that culture to write Chinese characters. To avoid getting the opinions and beliefs of one person, you would probably want to read a lot of books by Chinese authors, watch Chinese films, research China, and talk to Chinese people. \n\nThis is not really disputed by the statement that \"people are different\" because one of the things that makes people different is their cultural experience. If you have one Chinese character in your book and he does not speak Chinese or behave in any way that is distinctly Chinese, that's fine. People are different. But if 49.6% of people in your book are Chinese and they all act like French people(their food preferences are all French, their clothing is French, their favorite authors are French, their parents expect French things from them, and their stories about their childhoods all take place in France), you're getting to a point where your lack of knowledge is pressing against reality and you are missing opportunities to use culture to characterize people.\n\nWomen are not a different culture than men, not in the way Chinese culture is different from French culture. But Women do experience their cultures differently, and so to a lesser degree than the difference between Chinese people and French people, women are different than men \\*even assuming\\* that all other things about their life experience are exactly the same as those of men. \n\nWe know that this assumption isn't true. But even if we were to assume that the only difference between men and women is that women experience their culture differently than men, we can assume logically that it is a good idea to try to immerse ourselves in their cultural experience to understand them better, for all the same reasons we would do that for Chinese people. The best way to do that is to read books by women, watch films by women, research the things that make their lives different, and talk to them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0bhz",
                    "author": "Mindless_Wrap1758",
                    "body": "There's the benefit of seeing how the other half lives and thinks.  There are fundamental differences between cultures, genders, sexes, and sexual orientations. These should be respected and loved without cultural relativism or a similar claim that we should have gender blindness, the way people tout colorblindness as the cure for racism. In my view, we should aim for an unmarginalized and Rawlsian (equitable) society. \n\nOur shared humanity is what matters the most and on that level we can empathize with anyone. Some men grew up in a mostly female household or had a strong relationship with their mother. So some of us have a deeper well to draw on. But there's also the fact that these people inhabited roles in our lives. I was very close to my mother and lived with her almost 30 years. But I can't escape that we were always mother and son and I haven't even lived half of her lifespan. As much as we shared, there are important elements of our lives that we didn't share with each other.\n\nThen there's also the fact for many their gender or whatever isn't as central to their identity as other people's are. I assume that as someone who has suicidal depression most of my life, I could relate more to Sylvia Plath's semi autobiographical book than a woman who never had a bad day in her life. But the opposite could be argued because gender played a great role in her life. Or you as a writer could see that as being the most central aspect of her life.\n\nA famous female studio bassist said the note is either good or not, not masculine or feminine. So the quality of an author is paramount. Queer author Alison Bechdel came up with the Bechdel test. She asked how many works always have a woman talking to a man or if she's talking to a woman she's talking about a man. The same can go the other way, but I wouldn't doubt more great books would fail her test than a similar test applied to male characters. There's no uniform female or gay or whatever experience. But there's more than meets the eye that can be missed by people not in a group.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rbubf",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> So some of us have a deeper well to draw on.\n\nI think it would be a rare exception to not have women connections in real life.  Most people had a mother growing up, most men end up in romantic relationships with women, many men have sisters, aunts, grandmas...Women are in school and the workplace now-a-days.  To not have a deep enough well to craft a good woman character seems unlikely IMO.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r0bhz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1k85",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "You need to read female authors because they are a critical part of the canon.  You can't just substitute Mary Shelley for someone else, if you're going to be a writer you should have read authors that include women such as Mary Shelley, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, George Eliot, and Emily Dickinson.  It might be okay to have missed Josephine Tey, Isabel Allende, Agatha Christie, or Maya Angelou - but if you have missed all of them just because they're women, I don't see how you can write well.\n\nSo yeah, authors (male or female) should have read novels written by women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1ovc",
                    "author": "toooooold4this",
                    "body": "Women write robust female characters because we have things to say about womanhood and want our varied points of view to be center stage rather than a side character or romantic interest. \n\nThe books you mentioned (Harry Potter and Twilight) are giving you a very narrow insight into how women think. \n\nWhen men write women's characters, they write them from their own POV. When you're writing a female character from your interactions with women, it's still from your POV. When you read characters' words and behaviors, those viewpoints are processed a different way. You step into their bodies and minds.\n\nOne of the things male writers do for female characters is write them the way men see them or want to see them, so women often find themselves admiring their own bodies in the mirror or dressing in heels to do basic tasks around the house or wearing clothes that are too small to show off their figure (which doesn't do anything but make us uncomfortable and lumpy, btw).\n\nAs a writer, I would think you would want to read broadly to get as many voices as possible in your head.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4p2y",
                    "author": "Mysterious-Maybe-184",
                    "body": "I man",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rzj87",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r4p2y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rcp0x",
                    "author": "DreamingSilverDreams",
                    "body": ">Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nStatistically speaking, the likelihood of you not being able to write a good female character is extremely high just because you are a man. The absolute majority of female characters written by men are terrible. Moreover, these terrible characters are supported by a long, time-honoured tradition. In addition, literature (especially fantasy and sci-fi that you seem to like) geared toward men tends to have very few well-written female characters. \n\nConsidering all of these, it is normal to assume that you, being a man, lack understanding of women, their thoughts, and motivations. Thus, you receive advice to read female authors.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nThere is no 'a way women think'. However, there are shared experiences that all (or almost all) women have. Some of these experiences are related to biology, e.g. the start of menstruation or physical changes during puberty or pregnancy. Some experiences are cultural and limited to specific societies, but still, all women in those societies have similar experiences. For example, there can be social pressure to always look good, smile, and express an overall gentle and cheerful attitude. \n\nMen do not share these experiences. Their biology is different. They are socialised differently. They face different social pressures and expectations.\n\n A lot of men have no idea about uniquely female experiences and challenges. A female author may introduce these to men. This is why reading books written by women is important. It is a window into a world that many men not only never experience, but do not even suspect to exist.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThe limitation of this approach is that a) you see only what women want to show you (I assume you are not a stalker) and b) you see only what you can and want to see.\n\nEvery person has multiple faces or personas that they use to interact with other people. It is extremely unlikely for anyone to see all these personas even if the two people are close. Think about your mother. You are, probably, very familiar with her 'mother' persona. However, do you know her 'lover' persona that she uses with her lover? Or her 'friend' persona that she uses with her friends? Or her 'boss' persona that dominates her work hours? Or whatever other personas your mother has? And, of course, as many other commenters mentioned you have no access to your mother's inner thoughts. So, while you may attempt to document her in various environments and interactions, you will never be able to see the inner workings of her mind.\n\nIt is also unreasonable to expect that someone would share all their reasoning and motivation with you. Even someone, who is extremely cooperative and can fully discard social norms and conventions and talk freely about any topic, does not understand themselves fully. A lot of things you would hear are rationalisations and justifications, not the actual motives and reasons.\n\nYou, yourself, are also a great limitation. As someone who lacks relevant experiences, you are very likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, under- or over-empathise a lot of details in your interactions with women. You are also very likely to hold a number of cultural biases and stereotypes that would affect your interactions and their interpretations.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality.\n\nIt is not a big deal when one author does it. It is a huge deal when the majority of authors do it. And this is precisely the situation we are in. The majority of female characters in books, films, plays, etc. are representations of male fantasies. They have nothing to do with real women but they do affect real women by creating expectations and unwanted social pressures.\n\nIf most books, films, or plays depict women as insignificant decorative elements existing for the pleasure of male readers and male characters how would women be seen in a society? How men would see women?\n\n&#x200B;\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThis is a very bad comparison. Most books you've read, probably, have decent male characters. Therefore, inaccurate depictions of men feel novel and refreshing.\n\nMost female characters, on the other hand, are poorly written. It is neither enjoyable nor interesting to see yet another terrible female character. It is annoying, frustrating, and upsetting. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\rThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\r\n\nIMO, every author should strive to create relatable characters. Relatable =/= realistic. Most protagonists in fantasy and sci-fi are not realistic but they are relatable. Most female characters are not relatable because many authors prefer their personal fantasies to real women and the rest are just bad at writing women. This is especially prevalent in male-oriented genres.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rd13h",
                    "author": "FongYuLan",
                    "body": "As an author, you should read a wide range of books and be able to duplicate their voices as an exercise, and maintain your own writing voice for your own work. If you can do that, you\u2019re a master writer with control over words.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rdqoa",
                    "author": "Theevildothatido",
                    "body": "> 1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nWhen I was much younger I read some note by a television critic who claimed about *Ally McBeal* that David E. Kelley, the writer \u201cunderstood how women think\u201d. At the time I considered this a ridiculous statement, for indeed, there was no singular way \u201chow women think\u201d and in fact quite sexist.\n\nI still believe that but I also realized interacting with some people that there's more nuance to it. While I don't believe there is such a thing as \u201cunderstanding how women think\u201d, there is definitely such a thing as \u201cnot understanding how women think\u201d, or any group really, which is more so persons who believe \u201cwomen think\u201d in a certain way and it's absolutely wrong as in no woman, nay person on the planet realistically thinks like that or at least a very small number.\n\nPerhaps that is what the critic thought. I first construed that comment as \u201cAlly McBeal acts how women act\u201d as in the critic thought they all acted the same and like Ally McBeal, but perhaps it was more so \u201cFinally, a character that acts like a plausible woman that could exist.\u201d, not necessarily that they all think like that.\n\nHowever, I also don't really think that reading such fiction actually leads people to gain a new perspective either. People draw the conclusions they want to, and I find that people who \u201cdon't understand how women think\u201d in general simply \u201cdon't understand how people think\u201d because they want the world to be in a certain way it's not. I've had some discussions with such persons at least and they read such fiction but simply drew absolutely bizarre conclusions from it but about humans in general and the characters therein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rvc8l",
                    "author": "No-Development4601",
                    "body": "I mean, the idea that you \"don't need to read works by over half of the current authors\" is a very weird take to have. Women are (by about 0.5%) the majority of authors currently. I think if you're not reading books by women, you're reading only within narrow categories that are male dominated and/or purposely avoiding women.  \n\nGenerally authors benefit from exposure to a variety of points of views, to allow them to craft more interesting stories. If your story doesn't have anything that surprises or grabs the reader's attention they will put the book down and forget to pick it back up. This is why a lot of authors don't succeed in selling their stories until they're older (40+) - they need life experiences to have information to mine to come up with an interesting and coherent story.\n\nWomen don't all \"think\" the same way, certainly not across cultures or age-ranges. A teenage girl in the US wouldn't have a lot in common with an elderly woman in rural India. And women are all individuals, but they tend to have an overlapping set of shared experiences. \n\nOne thing you may want to consider if you want to publish, is -- how many readers do you want to attract? If you write a fantasy women in a way women find offensive, you can kiss 64% of the market goodbye. Women are much more likely to buy books than men . Therefore you should try not to write female characters women find offensive if you want commercial success.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1s0zc7",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "One of the most important aspects of a lot of book is having interesting characters who people relate to who act as wish fulfilment for people. This is a major factor behind the success of books. People read about heroes who are living lives they want to live, with friends they want to have and enemies they want to crush. \n\nPart of the value of reading female written books is getting a better grasp on that. You can do that with in depth interviews as well, but reading is a bit easier and more reliable. \n\nOne thing that is often tricky is getting right people who embrace some aspect of femininity and reject others. As a man, do you know which aspects of femininity women tend to fantasize about? Do you know what they want to reject? Do you know what pressures women fantasize about overcoming?\n\nThe success or failure in portraying these things is often very nuanced and so finding good examples helps. Let me give a few examples. \n\n1. Encanto was partly very popular due to Luisa, a more muscular and bulky woman who also was quite feminine in ways, and was holding up the family and carrying their burdens. A very common female fantasy is being appreciated for doing everything for their families enough that others help up and they can rest. She was more popular than Isabela because less women relate to being a perfectionist whose life needs a bit of chaos. \n\n2. Hermione was popular because a lot of women are nerdy outcasts who read a lot, study hard, and aren't appreciated for their intelligence and helpfulness, and she looked badass when she tried at the dance. \n\n3. Brandon Sanderson did Jasnah Kholin very well because he extensively interviewed women on how they saw themselves and atheism and tied it together into a badass, murderous scholar who looks fantastic and feminine while doing it. \n\nYou can't really get a very detailed understanding of the archetypes of women that women tend to fantasize about by observing women and limited experience. Commercial success is heavily about crafting a friend group for readers of men and women who they like fantasizing about being and being friends with, and so while every woman thinks differently, understanding what sorts of people are popular and unpopular among women helps a lot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1sw4au",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "idk, I feel like what people like is going to vary from person to person, more than groups wanting one type.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1s0zc7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1t244w",
                    "author": "TheBookishFoodie",
                    "body": "No one needs to read anything they don\u2019t want to.\n\nAnd if your audience is incel virgins living in their mom\u2019s basement, it would behoove you not to do so. Just keep writing women characters who admire their tits in the mirror and then boobily boob down the stairs. Maybe you\u2019ll even get lucky and Nick Adams will pay you to ghostwrite his tweets about eating at Hooters with his alpha boys.\n\nNow if you want to be a good writer, yes, you\u2019ll need to read women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1tt3e4",
                    "author": "tbigaming",
                    "body": "A lot if people have talked abiut the expierence of reading and the influence it has on you. Yet as a fellow writer I feel like from a linguistic perspective and working on the way you write there is a noticable differnece between how women write and how men write. Not opening yourself up to this you would mis a lot of insight of how you write and how being a man influences this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16pfgca",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qoh48",
                "author": "eggs-benedryl",
                "body": ">The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters,\n\nwhy would someone writing fiction not want realistic characters? you can still create people that are caricatures or are tropes but this seems like something you'd want control over rather than unknowingly writing unrealistic characters\n\n> I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nYour personal interactions and perceptions of women are not reality as they are only YOUR reality, if you want to write stories that other people can relate to then you should be able to understand their perspectives so you can meld the two. So the reality you create can be relatable and well rounded. \n\n>There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nwhich is why you might choose to read more than one book by a woman...to get a more holistic set of views or common perspectives that many women share\n\n&#x200B;\n\nbut honestly, you haven't explained how it could be a detriment, there's little reason NOT to read from female authors you really only stand to benefit from it and it's quite odd you wouldn't have been doing this already",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16pfgca"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qwdtb",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "> you haven't explained how it could be a detriment\n\nRight, I specifically said there is no detriment to it.  I'm trying to understand the view that men in general should be striving to do it.\n\n> why would someone writing fiction not want realistic characters?\n\nIn fantasy, most beloved characters are not realistic.  Gandalf or Yoda could never be real; no person has lived so long or been a master of both wisdom and battle in a fight against pure evil.  Real life people have flaws, at most lived ~120 years, and battles are more grey than white/black.\n\n> Your personal interactions and perceptions of women are not reality as they are only YOUR reality\n\nThose make those most interesting stories, no?  Consider the diary of Anne Franke, it was entirely her perspective, her reality.\n\n> which is why you might choose to read more than one book by a woman...to get a more holistic set of views or common perspectives that many women share\n\n\u200bOkay...thats an obvious point I should have seen lol, thanks for pointing it out.  I'm not sure there would be common perspectives that I'd find, but its possible, so !delta",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qoh48"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1qwhge",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/eggs-benedryl ([18\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/eggs-benedryl)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1qwdtb"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkbqf",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nThere is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlf0x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nI don't think complaining is that fun, so I don't see this as an upside.\n\n> There is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.\n\nHow so?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkbqf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkfxj",
                    "author": "LetterheadNo1752",
                    "body": ">These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work\n\nNo one here has read your work either. Sounds like you should seek the opinions of people who have",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qll3i",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Eventually that is my plan, but not confident or finished enough in my stuff to share it yet.\n\nThe purpose of this post is for me to understand the people who give the advice without even having read the work.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkfxj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkg6j",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\n>My view is that I have no need to do this. \n\nI don't....\n\nAny author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nA director who said they only watched long fantasy movies made by men is a shitty director, I guarantee, because they don't understand MOVIES and have an extremely limited view.\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nThe reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nTwo words: vagina purse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ql8zw",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\nNot consciously, but I can tell by their name and picture usually.  My big example here being Harry Potter I know is written by a women and I read that, whereas male authors I know I read are Tolkien, GRRM, Robert Jordan, Jonathan Stroud.\n\n> Any author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nWhy does it need to be broad?  If I only want to write one genre, why not just read that genre and try to master it instead of going wide?\n\n> Two words: vagina purse.\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\n> The reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nHow can they know that when people give advice without having even read the work?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkg6j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkmhp",
                    "author": "turndownforwomp",
                    "body": "If you\u2019re perfectly happy to create unrealistic characters, what exactly would make you change your view on this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlq9x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Not sure.  But this sub always surprises me with new viewpoints that are valid so I think it is possible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkmhp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlax2",
                    "author": "Fact875",
                    "body": "Setting aside whether you are able to write women well or not, would you deny that it's probably going to help you more as a writer, all other things being equal, for a writer to read work written by authors from a variety of backgrounds, perspectives and identities, as opposed to only reading authors with more or less the same identity?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qmad5",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I guess it depends on your goals.  If you want to appeal to a wider audience it might help.  But if you want to get one genre or specific niche done well then focusing on that niche seems more valuable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qlax2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qm7po",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": ">My view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\nIsn't that the same view you'd hold if you did, in fact, need to? The argument is that you don't have a sense for the different voice women bring to writing, in other words that you're unaware of the differences; your premise is that there are no differences. If there were, and you were unaware of them ... how would you know?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnyne",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "True.  I could be missing something that I need without knowing that I need it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qm7po"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qngs2",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "Firstly - I assume that you want to create works of art that people of all genders can appreciate, and writing women that come across as realistic is a big part of that. So with that goal in mind, lets look at your 3 reasonings:\n\n1. Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends. Women in certain cultures are socialized in certain ways and often share a lot of similar experiences. If you completely miss or misrepresent those experiences, you will damage immersion for a good amount of readers.\n\n2. Interactions with women are good to help, but they can only give you so much. Most women act differently when not around any men, or when not around anyone at all. And you cannot read minds. Reading what women actually write about themselves and their experiences can help give a much more well rounded view on writing them.\n\n3. This seems to be the big one. If you don't care about writing realistic female characters, of course you shouldn't care about learning what realistic is. But I do think that this will hurt your writing more than you realize. Generally society has a male point of view as the default for most media. There has been a ton of books/movies/plays and so on that give the male perspective on women. So even if you find a woman's perspective on men interesting, most women are not likely to find the reverse something they are looking for. And honestly, I wouldn't find it interesting either, I've read enough of men writing women without understanding them for a lifetime.\n\nI obviously don't know if this is something you actually struggle with, but it seems like at least trying some female authors will give you a much better perspective to say whether you actually need this help or not. Maybe you write women fine, and those authors won't tell you much that's new. Maybe you don't and this can be a wake up call. But it's going to be hard for you to say without ever trying to read them, so I'd say just go for it!\n\nPlus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qrybv",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends.\n\nIf you can convince of this, I think the rest of your points make a lot more sense.  My first reaction on this point is that isn't this dangerous territory to think on, that it will lead to stereotyping?  But if we can get past that, could you give some examples of experiences commonly held by women that would change them to be different from a man (personality wise).  I guess this is new for me because the old advice I used to go off was: treat women like people; implying that people are all the same just with different body parts.\n\n> Plus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.\n\nI don't doubt it, I just feel like there would be as many undervalued male authors in history.  (my favorite author is an undervalued male writer IMO)",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qngs2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnpkv",
                    "author": "Fightlife45",
                    "body": "They should just read good works, many of which are written by women, such as frankenstein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qs8sr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "This seems more of an argument to read good works, than to read works specifically by women, no?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnpkv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnthl",
                    "author": "PucaGanAinm",
                    "body": "I'm sorry, but any writer who thinks its not valuable to read broadly, in this case the herculean task to....include women, is going to be an absolutely dogshit writer. \n\n>By reading a novel written by a women\n\nYou expand your horizons.\n\n>I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYou're never in their head. \n\n> writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nYes it is. We can tell, and it comes off terribly. \n\n>Readers still get to see how that author views women\n\nIf you're writing fiction you're not writing what *you* think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\n>if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nFrom this post, I can say with absolute certainty you are one of them but you just haven't realised it.\n\nI know this all sounds harsh, but this knock back to reality is what every writer needs at some point. You are not as good as you think, especially if you can't see the benefit of broad reading material.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtnzr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> in this case the herculean task to....include women\n\nAgain, to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to read stories by women.  I have no issues with reading stories by women.  I'm just trying to understand why I should go out of my way to make sure the authors I read are women.\n\n> You're never in their head.\n\nTrue, but they express their thoughts with words and facial expressions and mannerisms.  I mean, they could be lying, but isn't that a thought I shouldn't be indulging in - the false trope that women lie?\n\n> If you're writing fiction you're not writing what you think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\nIn theory, but really its the authors story and their voice telling it.  If two authors wrote the same character, there would be differences.\n\n> I know this all sounds harsh\n\nYeah, but I suppose I opened that bridge by making the post somewhat personally focused.  So, no worries, trying to understand where this view comes from.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnthl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qntua",
                    "author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
                    "body": "But... women write good books? Why wouldn't you want to read them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qu0uh",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm not saying to avoid books written by women.  I loved Harry Potter, Twilight, and I can appreciate the good writing of Fonda Lee even if the story wasn't up my alley.\n\nThe advice I get is to go out of my way to make sure I am reading more woman authors, meaning skipping over male authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qntua"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qo0pi",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I find it strange that you would purposefully written books by just one demographic. Do you purposefully avoid women authors? Why?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quavq",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you purposefully avoid women authors\n\nI don't think so.  At least, not consciously.  I pick books based on recommendations and book covers/summaries.  That said, the vast majority of books I've read have been by males.  I'm not sure if thats chance, male authors being more prominent, or maybe subconsciously I am avoiding female authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qo0pi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qoer8",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nWhat advice would you give these authors if their intention is to write accurate, realistic portrayals of men? Would a suggestion (among others) that they read examples of men written by men really be that outlandish?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quy8c",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "No, that would be reasonable.  But I would only give that advice to those specific authors, I wouldn't go around telling all women to read more books by men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qoer8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qossq",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a woman, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nIt's a valid observation that there isn't a monolithic \"way women think,\" but it's fallacious to conclude that reading a woman's work only offers insight into that particular woman. Isn't literature often a reflection of broader cultural, societal, and historical contexts? By reading works written by women, one exposes oneself to a range of perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked in a male-dominated literary canon.\n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism.\n\nReal-life interactions are limited to one's subjective experiences. Isn't it a rather narrow view to rely solely on personal experiences and eschew broader literary insights? How can you be certain that your representation is comprehensive and not riddled with unconscious biases?\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nWhy not? Isn't perpetuating one's personal fantasy potentially harmful, especially if it reinforces stereotypes or misrepresents half the population? Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nIsn't it presumptuous to believe that one can adequately write \"realistic\" women characters without ever engaging in literature written by women themselves?\n\n>Also, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\nIf you acknowledge the value in reading stories written by women, then isn't it logically inconsistent to dismiss the potential benefits of male authors engaging with these works, especially if their goal is to write well-rounded female characters?\n\nYour argument hinges on the premise of understanding women through personal interactions alone. But isn't literature, at its core, an exploration of the human condition, transcending personal experience? If you truly aspire to be a comprehensive author, why would you willingly limit your sources of inspiration and understanding? Isn't the purpose of literature to challenge and expand our worldviews? Why then, would you shy away from broadening your literary horizons?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1yxr",
                    "author": "hominumdivomque",
                    "body": ">Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\nI agree with everything in your comment except this. *Literature* (speaking of fiction mind you, I don't mean works of scholarly non-fiction) doesn't have any responsibility. It's an art form. It's purpose is to express artistic beauty by means of human creativity, and it doesn't need to challenge or inform our view of the world to accomplish that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qossq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqe3d",
                    "author": "ambientLemon",
                    "body": "Its typical for a lot of writers to do research on something before the write about it. It doesn't have to necessarily be reading things written by women authors, it could be other types of media as well. \n\nDoing proper research can be the difference between finding that one detail that brings a character to life, and the one detail that makes a character inauthentic. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different\n\nRight, but there might be value in researching a specific character. If you have a character who is an intern in the fashion industry, it might make sense to read \"The Devil Wears Prada\" or whatever. Even if its just to get a sense of what your story is going to avoid. \n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. \n\nThis can be really helpful, but depending on the nature of the friendships and interactions there might be a lot of stuff they're not telling you. \n\nYou're also seeing them through the filter of your own perspective and biases, so you might really only understand your side to the story. It might be enough information for some stories, but not others.   \n\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nIt might not be? It depends on the genre and who you want your audience to be.  \nBut I think this is a poor thing to bank on.\n\nAt the very least maybe get proof readers early and often",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqon9",
                    "author": "somuchbitch",
                    "body": "> if a male author wants **realistic characters,** and is having trouble writing women.\n\nHow would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\n>real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYour interactions are only informed by your POV then. Do you only write men in the first person?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qybs2",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> How would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\nBy getting feedback on his writing.  If people say his women don't across as realistic, he could then go read books by women.  Though, I'd also say he could just talk with women, interview them, get their thoughts.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qqon9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtmu4",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Did you as an author just really claim, in effect that: \"I don't need to know how other people see the world in order to write well?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r2819",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I don't see where I claimed that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qtmu4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qupgn",
                    "author": "Izawwlgood",
                    "body": "Peter Brett wrote an excellent fantasy series about demons and the people who fight them. It's a lot of fun. It's got a ton of action, decent politics, a cool magic system, and some strong female protagonists.\n\nThe way the dude writes female perspective is... cringey and weird. There's a whole set of sections about teen sex that's pretty weird. I ended up skipping a lot of it, and not because I'm prude. \n\nI don't know if he spoke to women while writing this stuff, but it sure doesn't seem he did.\n\nWriting is about representing new perspectives and enticing readers with good stories. You can't do that if you suck at representing women. One way to learn about women is to read their stories.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quyhv",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "> There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women\n\nThere may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nThese differences aren't purely or even mostly due to some inherent biological difference in female vs male brains, but because of the real differences in how each navigate the world and how the world perceives and treats them due to being male or female.\n\nThis may include specific details that only a woman might notice because it isn't within the average man's experience.\n\n> I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nYou use real life interactions which means that your experience of women is limited to how women behave around you, a man, and what women are willing to share with you, a man. You have no knowledge of how women behave around other women in the absence of men, or when they are simply by themselves. And even in the situations which you do experience, it is only ever from an external perspective. You have no idea how they actually perceive you, you only know how you perceive them perceiving you.\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nIf you simply don't care, you don't care. However it is an advantage to a male writer for his female audience to regard him as an author that actually gets women, rather than yet another man who simply writes tropes. If you're satisfied with being the latter, then so be it, but the advice you are receiving is intended to help you not be that guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4lbr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> There may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think which is more cohesive than not, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nI'm not sold on this.  Maybe if you gave me an example?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1quyhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qw463",
                    "author": "jstnpotthoff",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThis is the biggest problem I have with your view. Your real-life interactions with most women are likely superficial--you understand how they interact *with you*. But you're likely unaware of their inner monologues, their priorities, and their true opinions. Everything you know is colored by your presence. Everybody has insecurities and hidden desires unknown to even the people closest to them. If you're writing women simply as a prop for your protagonist, this is fine. But if you want to make your women characters more realistically three-dimensional, it could help your understanding of these things immensely to read female authors who are not afraid to show their insecurities and innermost thoughts.\n\nThe End of Everything by Megan Abbott comes to mind.\n\nFear of Flying by Erica Jong, Postcards From the Edge by Carrie Fisher, and anything by Lionel Shriver...it also helps that they're all incredible writers.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxe3s",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nOf course every writer draws on their personal experience, the point is that reading someone's writing offers something that these IRL experiences don't. Principally and obviously your IRL experiences are merely your own and filtered through your perspective, life experience, etc., meaning that the other person's perspective is lacking. \n\nI'm sure you can think of examples from your own life where you and someone else have had different perceptions of the same exact experience or interaction.\n\nFor example, last night I was walking home alone. It wasn't late at all but was after dark and there weren't many people around. A guy about my age approached me and then asked me which direction a specific street is before continuing on. To him I'm sure it was a rather mundane exchange. However, because he was a bigger masc presenting guy, and because I'm a small physically weak and obviously gay guy, as soon as I noticed he was approaching me my mind raced to determine whether he was a potential threat. We had completely different experiences despite the same real-life interaction. If that guy went home and happened to read a story I wrote about that experience, he'd learn a lot and come away with a much more accurate idea of my perspective compared to only forming the idea based on his experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r8ju9",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think there is a good chance he knew what you were feeling, rather than thinking it was mundane.  When scared, we tend to show it through body-language and actions.  For example, if someone is constantly looking away, or trying to end the conversation, I can deduce they want to get out of there.  Fear can also show by a startled jump, or frozen stop.  All of these things can be observed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qxe3s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxpjd",
                    "author": "LurkerFailsLurking",
                    "body": "1) The logical extension of your argument is that there's no reason for an author to ever read anything by anyone but themselves, which is obviously untrue. While being well read doesn't guarantee that you will be a better writer, it unquestionably helps.\n\n2) For any author there are topics, ideas, perspectives, styles, etc that they are more comfortable with and tend to rely on in their writing. Authors who are comfortable writing about similar topics, etc tend to have other things in common too. Among other things, there are demographic patterns in the distribution of topics, etc that writers are comfortable with. This does not mean that literally all writers in certain demographic groups are the same, it only acknowledges there are common tendencies.\n\n2, corollary) Expanding the available breadth of topics, perspectives, styles, and ideas at your disposal makes you a better writer. One way to expand these \"tools\" at your disposal is to read a wide range of works. One way to read a wider range of works is to read a wider demographic range of authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0660",
                    "author": "cyrusposting",
                    "body": "\\>There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. \n\nIf you were writing a book about China you would probably read a couple books by Chinese authors because while Chinese people are not all the same, they do have a different culture and you need some understanding of that culture to write Chinese characters. To avoid getting the opinions and beliefs of one person, you would probably want to read a lot of books by Chinese authors, watch Chinese films, research China, and talk to Chinese people. \n\nThis is not really disputed by the statement that \"people are different\" because one of the things that makes people different is their cultural experience. If you have one Chinese character in your book and he does not speak Chinese or behave in any way that is distinctly Chinese, that's fine. People are different. But if 49.6% of people in your book are Chinese and they all act like French people(their food preferences are all French, their clothing is French, their favorite authors are French, their parents expect French things from them, and their stories about their childhoods all take place in France), you're getting to a point where your lack of knowledge is pressing against reality and you are missing opportunities to use culture to characterize people.\n\nWomen are not a different culture than men, not in the way Chinese culture is different from French culture. But Women do experience their cultures differently, and so to a lesser degree than the difference between Chinese people and French people, women are different than men \\*even assuming\\* that all other things about their life experience are exactly the same as those of men. \n\nWe know that this assumption isn't true. But even if we were to assume that the only difference between men and women is that women experience their culture differently than men, we can assume logically that it is a good idea to try to immerse ourselves in their cultural experience to understand them better, for all the same reasons we would do that for Chinese people. The best way to do that is to read books by women, watch films by women, research the things that make their lives different, and talk to them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0bhz",
                    "author": "Mindless_Wrap1758",
                    "body": "There's the benefit of seeing how the other half lives and thinks.  There are fundamental differences between cultures, genders, sexes, and sexual orientations. These should be respected and loved without cultural relativism or a similar claim that we should have gender blindness, the way people tout colorblindness as the cure for racism. In my view, we should aim for an unmarginalized and Rawlsian (equitable) society. \n\nOur shared humanity is what matters the most and on that level we can empathize with anyone. Some men grew up in a mostly female household or had a strong relationship with their mother. So some of us have a deeper well to draw on. But there's also the fact that these people inhabited roles in our lives. I was very close to my mother and lived with her almost 30 years. But I can't escape that we were always mother and son and I haven't even lived half of her lifespan. As much as we shared, there are important elements of our lives that we didn't share with each other.\n\nThen there's also the fact for many their gender or whatever isn't as central to their identity as other people's are. I assume that as someone who has suicidal depression most of my life, I could relate more to Sylvia Plath's semi autobiographical book than a woman who never had a bad day in her life. But the opposite could be argued because gender played a great role in her life. Or you as a writer could see that as being the most central aspect of her life.\n\nA famous female studio bassist said the note is either good or not, not masculine or feminine. So the quality of an author is paramount. Queer author Alison Bechdel came up with the Bechdel test. She asked how many works always have a woman talking to a man or if she's talking to a woman she's talking about a man. The same can go the other way, but I wouldn't doubt more great books would fail her test than a similar test applied to male characters. There's no uniform female or gay or whatever experience. But there's more than meets the eye that can be missed by people not in a group.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rbubf",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> So some of us have a deeper well to draw on.\n\nI think it would be a rare exception to not have women connections in real life.  Most people had a mother growing up, most men end up in romantic relationships with women, many men have sisters, aunts, grandmas...Women are in school and the workplace now-a-days.  To not have a deep enough well to craft a good woman character seems unlikely IMO.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r0bhz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1k85",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "You need to read female authors because they are a critical part of the canon.  You can't just substitute Mary Shelley for someone else, if you're going to be a writer you should have read authors that include women such as Mary Shelley, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, George Eliot, and Emily Dickinson.  It might be okay to have missed Josephine Tey, Isabel Allende, Agatha Christie, or Maya Angelou - but if you have missed all of them just because they're women, I don't see how you can write well.\n\nSo yeah, authors (male or female) should have read novels written by women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1ovc",
                    "author": "toooooold4this",
                    "body": "Women write robust female characters because we have things to say about womanhood and want our varied points of view to be center stage rather than a side character or romantic interest. \n\nThe books you mentioned (Harry Potter and Twilight) are giving you a very narrow insight into how women think. \n\nWhen men write women's characters, they write them from their own POV. When you're writing a female character from your interactions with women, it's still from your POV. When you read characters' words and behaviors, those viewpoints are processed a different way. You step into their bodies and minds.\n\nOne of the things male writers do for female characters is write them the way men see them or want to see them, so women often find themselves admiring their own bodies in the mirror or dressing in heels to do basic tasks around the house or wearing clothes that are too small to show off their figure (which doesn't do anything but make us uncomfortable and lumpy, btw).\n\nAs a writer, I would think you would want to read broadly to get as many voices as possible in your head.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4p2y",
                    "author": "Mysterious-Maybe-184",
                    "body": "I man",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rzj87",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r4p2y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rcp0x",
                    "author": "DreamingSilverDreams",
                    "body": ">Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nStatistically speaking, the likelihood of you not being able to write a good female character is extremely high just because you are a man. The absolute majority of female characters written by men are terrible. Moreover, these terrible characters are supported by a long, time-honoured tradition. In addition, literature (especially fantasy and sci-fi that you seem to like) geared toward men tends to have very few well-written female characters. \n\nConsidering all of these, it is normal to assume that you, being a man, lack understanding of women, their thoughts, and motivations. Thus, you receive advice to read female authors.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nThere is no 'a way women think'. However, there are shared experiences that all (or almost all) women have. Some of these experiences are related to biology, e.g. the start of menstruation or physical changes during puberty or pregnancy. Some experiences are cultural and limited to specific societies, but still, all women in those societies have similar experiences. For example, there can be social pressure to always look good, smile, and express an overall gentle and cheerful attitude. \n\nMen do not share these experiences. Their biology is different. They are socialised differently. They face different social pressures and expectations.\n\n A lot of men have no idea about uniquely female experiences and challenges. A female author may introduce these to men. This is why reading books written by women is important. It is a window into a world that many men not only never experience, but do not even suspect to exist.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThe limitation of this approach is that a) you see only what women want to show you (I assume you are not a stalker) and b) you see only what you can and want to see.\n\nEvery person has multiple faces or personas that they use to interact with other people. It is extremely unlikely for anyone to see all these personas even if the two people are close. Think about your mother. You are, probably, very familiar with her 'mother' persona. However, do you know her 'lover' persona that she uses with her lover? Or her 'friend' persona that she uses with her friends? Or her 'boss' persona that dominates her work hours? Or whatever other personas your mother has? And, of course, as many other commenters mentioned you have no access to your mother's inner thoughts. So, while you may attempt to document her in various environments and interactions, you will never be able to see the inner workings of her mind.\n\nIt is also unreasonable to expect that someone would share all their reasoning and motivation with you. Even someone, who is extremely cooperative and can fully discard social norms and conventions and talk freely about any topic, does not understand themselves fully. A lot of things you would hear are rationalisations and justifications, not the actual motives and reasons.\n\nYou, yourself, are also a great limitation. As someone who lacks relevant experiences, you are very likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, under- or over-empathise a lot of details in your interactions with women. You are also very likely to hold a number of cultural biases and stereotypes that would affect your interactions and their interpretations.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality.\n\nIt is not a big deal when one author does it. It is a huge deal when the majority of authors do it. And this is precisely the situation we are in. The majority of female characters in books, films, plays, etc. are representations of male fantasies. They have nothing to do with real women but they do affect real women by creating expectations and unwanted social pressures.\n\nIf most books, films, or plays depict women as insignificant decorative elements existing for the pleasure of male readers and male characters how would women be seen in a society? How men would see women?\n\n&#x200B;\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThis is a very bad comparison. Most books you've read, probably, have decent male characters. Therefore, inaccurate depictions of men feel novel and refreshing.\n\nMost female characters, on the other hand, are poorly written. It is neither enjoyable nor interesting to see yet another terrible female character. It is annoying, frustrating, and upsetting. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\rThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\r\n\nIMO, every author should strive to create relatable characters. Relatable =/= realistic. Most protagonists in fantasy and sci-fi are not realistic but they are relatable. Most female characters are not relatable because many authors prefer their personal fantasies to real women and the rest are just bad at writing women. This is especially prevalent in male-oriented genres.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rd13h",
                    "author": "FongYuLan",
                    "body": "As an author, you should read a wide range of books and be able to duplicate their voices as an exercise, and maintain your own writing voice for your own work. If you can do that, you\u2019re a master writer with control over words.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rdqoa",
                    "author": "Theevildothatido",
                    "body": "> 1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nWhen I was much younger I read some note by a television critic who claimed about *Ally McBeal* that David E. Kelley, the writer \u201cunderstood how women think\u201d. At the time I considered this a ridiculous statement, for indeed, there was no singular way \u201chow women think\u201d and in fact quite sexist.\n\nI still believe that but I also realized interacting with some people that there's more nuance to it. While I don't believe there is such a thing as \u201cunderstanding how women think\u201d, there is definitely such a thing as \u201cnot understanding how women think\u201d, or any group really, which is more so persons who believe \u201cwomen think\u201d in a certain way and it's absolutely wrong as in no woman, nay person on the planet realistically thinks like that or at least a very small number.\n\nPerhaps that is what the critic thought. I first construed that comment as \u201cAlly McBeal acts how women act\u201d as in the critic thought they all acted the same and like Ally McBeal, but perhaps it was more so \u201cFinally, a character that acts like a plausible woman that could exist.\u201d, not necessarily that they all think like that.\n\nHowever, I also don't really think that reading such fiction actually leads people to gain a new perspective either. People draw the conclusions they want to, and I find that people who \u201cdon't understand how women think\u201d in general simply \u201cdon't understand how people think\u201d because they want the world to be in a certain way it's not. I've had some discussions with such persons at least and they read such fiction but simply drew absolutely bizarre conclusions from it but about humans in general and the characters therein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rvc8l",
                    "author": "No-Development4601",
                    "body": "I mean, the idea that you \"don't need to read works by over half of the current authors\" is a very weird take to have. Women are (by about 0.5%) the majority of authors currently. I think if you're not reading books by women, you're reading only within narrow categories that are male dominated and/or purposely avoiding women.  \n\nGenerally authors benefit from exposure to a variety of points of views, to allow them to craft more interesting stories. If your story doesn't have anything that surprises or grabs the reader's attention they will put the book down and forget to pick it back up. This is why a lot of authors don't succeed in selling their stories until they're older (40+) - they need life experiences to have information to mine to come up with an interesting and coherent story.\n\nWomen don't all \"think\" the same way, certainly not across cultures or age-ranges. A teenage girl in the US wouldn't have a lot in common with an elderly woman in rural India. And women are all individuals, but they tend to have an overlapping set of shared experiences. \n\nOne thing you may want to consider if you want to publish, is -- how many readers do you want to attract? If you write a fantasy women in a way women find offensive, you can kiss 64% of the market goodbye. Women are much more likely to buy books than men . Therefore you should try not to write female characters women find offensive if you want commercial success.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1s0zc7",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "One of the most important aspects of a lot of book is having interesting characters who people relate to who act as wish fulfilment for people. This is a major factor behind the success of books. People read about heroes who are living lives they want to live, with friends they want to have and enemies they want to crush. \n\nPart of the value of reading female written books is getting a better grasp on that. You can do that with in depth interviews as well, but reading is a bit easier and more reliable. \n\nOne thing that is often tricky is getting right people who embrace some aspect of femininity and reject others. As a man, do you know which aspects of femininity women tend to fantasize about? Do you know what they want to reject? Do you know what pressures women fantasize about overcoming?\n\nThe success or failure in portraying these things is often very nuanced and so finding good examples helps. Let me give a few examples. \n\n1. Encanto was partly very popular due to Luisa, a more muscular and bulky woman who also was quite feminine in ways, and was holding up the family and carrying their burdens. A very common female fantasy is being appreciated for doing everything for their families enough that others help up and they can rest. She was more popular than Isabela because less women relate to being a perfectionist whose life needs a bit of chaos. \n\n2. Hermione was popular because a lot of women are nerdy outcasts who read a lot, study hard, and aren't appreciated for their intelligence and helpfulness, and she looked badass when she tried at the dance. \n\n3. Brandon Sanderson did Jasnah Kholin very well because he extensively interviewed women on how they saw themselves and atheism and tied it together into a badass, murderous scholar who looks fantastic and feminine while doing it. \n\nYou can't really get a very detailed understanding of the archetypes of women that women tend to fantasize about by observing women and limited experience. Commercial success is heavily about crafting a friend group for readers of men and women who they like fantasizing about being and being friends with, and so while every woman thinks differently, understanding what sorts of people are popular and unpopular among women helps a lot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1sw4au",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "idk, I feel like what people like is going to vary from person to person, more than groups wanting one type.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1s0zc7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1t244w",
                    "author": "TheBookishFoodie",
                    "body": "No one needs to read anything they don\u2019t want to.\n\nAnd if your audience is incel virgins living in their mom\u2019s basement, it would behoove you not to do so. Just keep writing women characters who admire their tits in the mirror and then boobily boob down the stairs. Maybe you\u2019ll even get lucky and Nick Adams will pay you to ghostwrite his tweets about eating at Hooters with his alpha boys.\n\nNow if you want to be a good writer, yes, you\u2019ll need to read women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1tt3e4",
                    "author": "tbigaming",
                    "body": "A lot if people have talked abiut the expierence of reading and the influence it has on you. Yet as a fellow writer I feel like from a linguistic perspective and working on the way you write there is a noticable differnece between how women write and how men write. Not opening yourself up to this you would mis a lot of insight of how you write and how being a man influences this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16pfgca",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1reqtf",
                "author": "RandomRecorder753",
                "body": "Written accounts can give you an inner perspective that you wouldn't have as an exterior observer and that people might not give you in a direct conversation, paper is some kind of safe space and the fact that it could be fictional might give people more confidence to explore topics they usually wouldn't, which in return might make it more interesting in order to get some insights.\n\nYeah reading multiple accounts gives you and overview about what might be typical or rare in general, though whether that is useful or not kinda depends as you might deliberately choose to focus on something rare.\n\nFocus and perception, different people look at the same things differently and as you're limited to your own perspective you might extrapolate that other people see things the same as you, which might not be the case, though that is not exclusive to women. \n\nHaving unrealistic characters leads to the problem that the story can only be read in on way, which might be what you intend but which might no work for all readers and kinda limits your audience to the group of people who think they also could have wrote that.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16pfgca"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1rhd3x",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "!delta .  Written accounts could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than observation or conversation with them might.",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1reqtf"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1rhh3q",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/RandomRecorder753 ([4\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/RandomRecorder753)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1rhd3x"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkbqf",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nThere is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlf0x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Sure, but then you don't get to complain when you're posted to /r/menwritingwomen .\n\nI don't think complaining is that fun, so I don't see this as an upside.\n\n> There is very much an issue of men writing women badly because of a lack of care of knowledge.\n\nHow so?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkbqf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkfxj",
                    "author": "LetterheadNo1752",
                    "body": ">These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work\n\nNo one here has read your work either. Sounds like you should seek the opinions of people who have",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qll3i",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Eventually that is my plan, but not confident or finished enough in my stuff to share it yet.\n\nThe purpose of this post is for me to understand the people who give the advice without even having read the work.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkfxj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkg6j",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\n>My view is that I have no need to do this. \n\nI don't....\n\nAny author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nA director who said they only watched long fantasy movies made by men is a shitty director, I guarantee, because they don't understand MOVIES and have an extremely limited view.\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nThe reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nTwo words: vagina purse.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1ql8zw",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you check the gender of an author before you read something?\n\nNot consciously, but I can tell by their name and picture usually.  My big example here being Harry Potter I know is written by a women and I read that, whereas male authors I know I read are Tolkien, GRRM, Robert Jordan, Jonathan Stroud.\n\n> Any author should read EVERYTHING. As widely and broadly as possible. \n\nWhy does it need to be broad?  If I only want to write one genre, why not just read that genre and try to master it instead of going wide?\n\n> Two words: vagina purse.\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\n> The reason people suggest it is because they don't REALIZE they have trouble writing women.\n\nHow can they know that when people give advice without having even read the work?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkg6j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qkmhp",
                    "author": "turndownforwomp",
                    "body": "If you\u2019re perfectly happy to create unrealistic characters, what exactly would make you change your view on this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlq9x",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Not sure.  But this sub always surprises me with new viewpoints that are valid so I think it is possible.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qkmhp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qlax2",
                    "author": "Fact875",
                    "body": "Setting aside whether you are able to write women well or not, would you deny that it's probably going to help you more as a writer, all other things being equal, for a writer to read work written by authors from a variety of backgrounds, perspectives and identities, as opposed to only reading authors with more or less the same identity?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qmad5",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I guess it depends on your goals.  If you want to appeal to a wider audience it might help.  But if you want to get one genre or specific niche done well then focusing on that niche seems more valuable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qlax2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qm7po",
                    "author": "badass_panda",
                    "body": ">My view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\nIsn't that the same view you'd hold if you did, in fact, need to? The argument is that you don't have a sense for the different voice women bring to writing, in other words that you're unaware of the differences; your premise is that there are no differences. If there were, and you were unaware of them ... how would you know?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnyne",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "True.  I could be missing something that I need without knowing that I need it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qm7po"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qngs2",
                    "author": "DuhChappers",
                    "body": "Firstly - I assume that you want to create works of art that people of all genders can appreciate, and writing women that come across as realistic is a big part of that. So with that goal in mind, lets look at your 3 reasonings:\n\n1. Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends. Women in certain cultures are socialized in certain ways and often share a lot of similar experiences. If you completely miss or misrepresent those experiences, you will damage immersion for a good amount of readers.\n\n2. Interactions with women are good to help, but they can only give you so much. Most women act differently when not around any men, or when not around anyone at all. And you cannot read minds. Reading what women actually write about themselves and their experiences can help give a much more well rounded view on writing them.\n\n3. This seems to be the big one. If you don't care about writing realistic female characters, of course you shouldn't care about learning what realistic is. But I do think that this will hurt your writing more than you realize. Generally society has a male point of view as the default for most media. There has been a ton of books/movies/plays and so on that give the male perspective on women. So even if you find a woman's perspective on men interesting, most women are not likely to find the reverse something they are looking for. And honestly, I wouldn't find it interesting either, I've read enough of men writing women without understanding them for a lifetime.\n\nI obviously don't know if this is something you actually struggle with, but it seems like at least trying some female authors will give you a much better perspective to say whether you actually need this help or not. Maybe you write women fine, and those authors won't tell you much that's new. Maybe you don't and this can be a wake up call. But it's going to be hard for you to say without ever trying to read them, so I'd say just go for it!\n\nPlus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qrybv",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Just because all women are different does not mean there are not trends.\n\nIf you can convince of this, I think the rest of your points make a lot more sense.  My first reaction on this point is that isn't this dangerous territory to think on, that it will lead to stereotyping?  But if we can get past that, could you give some examples of experiences commonly held by women that would change them to be different from a man (personality wise).  I guess this is new for me because the old advice I used to go off was: treat women like people; implying that people are all the same just with different body parts.\n\n> Plus, there's a lot of great undervalued female authors throughout history, so you might find some really great stories from it too.\n\nI don't doubt it, I just feel like there would be as many undervalued male authors in history.  (my favorite author is an undervalued male writer IMO)",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qngs2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnpkv",
                    "author": "Fightlife45",
                    "body": "They should just read good works, many of which are written by women, such as frankenstein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qs8sr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "This seems more of an argument to read good works, than to read works specifically by women, no?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnpkv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qnthl",
                    "author": "PucaGanAinm",
                    "body": "I'm sorry, but any writer who thinks its not valuable to read broadly, in this case the herculean task to....include women, is going to be an absolutely dogshit writer. \n\n>By reading a novel written by a women\n\nYou expand your horizons.\n\n>I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYou're never in their head. \n\n> writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nYes it is. We can tell, and it comes off terribly. \n\n>Readers still get to see how that author views women\n\nIf you're writing fiction you're not writing what *you* think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\n>if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nFrom this post, I can say with absolute certainty you are one of them but you just haven't realised it.\n\nI know this all sounds harsh, but this knock back to reality is what every writer needs at some point. You are not as good as you think, especially if you can't see the benefit of broad reading material.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtnzr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> in this case the herculean task to....include women\n\nAgain, to be clear, I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to read stories by women.  I have no issues with reading stories by women.  I'm just trying to understand why I should go out of my way to make sure the authors I read are women.\n\n> You're never in their head.\n\nTrue, but they express their thoughts with words and facial expressions and mannerisms.  I mean, they could be lying, but isn't that a thought I shouldn't be indulging in - the false trope that women lie?\n\n> If you're writing fiction you're not writing what you think. You're writing from a characters POV. \n\nIn theory, but really its the authors story and their voice telling it.  If two authors wrote the same character, there would be differences.\n\n> I know this all sounds harsh\n\nYeah, but I suppose I opened that bridge by making the post somewhat personally focused.  So, no worries, trying to understand where this view comes from.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qnthl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qntua",
                    "author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
                    "body": "But... women write good books? Why wouldn't you want to read them?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qu0uh",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm not saying to avoid books written by women.  I loved Harry Potter, Twilight, and I can appreciate the good writing of Fonda Lee even if the story wasn't up my alley.\n\nThe advice I get is to go out of my way to make sure I am reading more woman authors, meaning skipping over male authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qntua"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qo0pi",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I find it strange that you would purposefully written books by just one demographic. Do you purposefully avoid women authors? Why?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quavq",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Do you purposefully avoid women authors\n\nI don't think so.  At least, not consciously.  I pick books based on recommendations and book covers/summaries.  That said, the vast majority of books I've read have been by males.  I'm not sure if thats chance, male authors being more prominent, or maybe subconsciously I am avoiding female authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qo0pi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qoer8",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nWhat advice would you give these authors if their intention is to write accurate, realistic portrayals of men? Would a suggestion (among others) that they read examples of men written by men really be that outlandish?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quy8c",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "No, that would be reasonable.  But I would only give that advice to those specific authors, I wouldn't go around telling all women to read more books by men.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qoer8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qossq",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a woman, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nIt's a valid observation that there isn't a monolithic \"way women think,\" but it's fallacious to conclude that reading a woman's work only offers insight into that particular woman. Isn't literature often a reflection of broader cultural, societal, and historical contexts? By reading works written by women, one exposes oneself to a range of perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked in a male-dominated literary canon.\n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism.\n\nReal-life interactions are limited to one's subjective experiences. Isn't it a rather narrow view to rely solely on personal experiences and eschew broader literary insights? How can you be certain that your representation is comprehensive and not riddled with unconscious biases?\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nWhy not? Isn't perpetuating one's personal fantasy potentially harmful, especially if it reinforces stereotypes or misrepresents half the population? Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\n>The one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women.\n\nIsn't it presumptuous to believe that one can adequately write \"realistic\" women characters without ever engaging in literature written by women themselves?\n\n>Also, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\nIf you acknowledge the value in reading stories written by women, then isn't it logically inconsistent to dismiss the potential benefits of male authors engaging with these works, especially if their goal is to write well-rounded female characters?\n\nYour argument hinges on the premise of understanding women through personal interactions alone. But isn't literature, at its core, an exploration of the human condition, transcending personal experience? If you truly aspire to be a comprehensive author, why would you willingly limit your sources of inspiration and understanding? Isn't the purpose of literature to challenge and expand our worldviews? Why then, would you shy away from broadening your literary horizons?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1yxr",
                    "author": "hominumdivomque",
                    "body": ">Isn't the responsibility of literature, in part, to challenge, inform, and expand our understanding of the world?\n\nI agree with everything in your comment except this. *Literature* (speaking of fiction mind you, I don't mean works of scholarly non-fiction) doesn't have any responsibility. It's an art form. It's purpose is to express artistic beauty by means of human creativity, and it doesn't need to challenge or inform our view of the world to accomplish that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qossq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqe3d",
                    "author": "ambientLemon",
                    "body": "Its typical for a lot of writers to do research on something before the write about it. It doesn't have to necessarily be reading things written by women authors, it could be other types of media as well. \n\nDoing proper research can be the difference between finding that one detail that brings a character to life, and the one detail that makes a character inauthentic. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different\n\nRight, but there might be value in researching a specific character. If you have a character who is an intern in the fashion industry, it might make sense to read \"The Devil Wears Prada\" or whatever. Even if its just to get a sense of what your story is going to avoid. \n\n>2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. \n\nThis can be really helpful, but depending on the nature of the friendships and interactions there might be a lot of stuff they're not telling you. \n\nYou're also seeing them through the filter of your own perspective and biases, so you might really only understand your side to the story. It might be enough information for some stories, but not others.   \n\n\n>3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal.\n\nIt might not be? It depends on the genre and who you want your audience to be.  \nBut I think this is a poor thing to bank on.\n\nAt the very least maybe get proof readers early and often",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qqon9",
                    "author": "somuchbitch",
                    "body": "> if a male author wants **realistic characters,** and is having trouble writing women.\n\nHow would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\n>real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them\n\nYour interactions are only informed by your POV then. Do you only write men in the first person?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qybs2",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> How would he know if what he is writing is realistic or that he is having trouble without doing research?\n\nBy getting feedback on his writing.  If people say his women don't across as realistic, he could then go read books by women.  Though, I'd also say he could just talk with women, interview them, get their thoughts.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qqon9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qtmu4",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "Did you as an author just really claim, in effect that: \"I don't need to know how other people see the world in order to write well?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r2819",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I don't see where I claimed that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qtmu4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qupgn",
                    "author": "Izawwlgood",
                    "body": "Peter Brett wrote an excellent fantasy series about demons and the people who fight them. It's a lot of fun. It's got a ton of action, decent politics, a cool magic system, and some strong female protagonists.\n\nThe way the dude writes female perspective is... cringey and weird. There's a whole set of sections about teen sex that's pretty weird. I ended up skipping a lot of it, and not because I'm prude. \n\nI don't know if he spoke to women while writing this stuff, but it sure doesn't seem he did.\n\nWriting is about representing new perspectives and enticing readers with good stories. You can't do that if you suck at representing women. One way to learn about women is to read their stories.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1quyhv",
                    "author": "shooketh_not_stireth",
                    "body": "> There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women\n\nThere may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nThese differences aren't purely or even mostly due to some inherent biological difference in female vs male brains, but because of the real differences in how each navigate the world and how the world perceives and treats them due to being male or female.\n\nThis may include specific details that only a woman might notice because it isn't within the average man's experience.\n\n> I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nYou use real life interactions which means that your experience of women is limited to how women behave around you, a man, and what women are willing to share with you, a man. You have no knowledge of how women behave around other women in the absence of men, or when they are simply by themselves. And even in the situations which you do experience, it is only ever from an external perspective. You have no idea how they actually perceive you, you only know how you perceive them perceiving you.\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nIf you simply don't care, you don't care. However it is an advantage to a male writer for his female audience to regard him as an author that actually gets women, rather than yet another man who simply writes tropes. If you're satisfied with being the latter, then so be it, but the advice you are receiving is intended to help you not be that guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4lbr",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> There may not be a universal way that all women think, but there are absolutely ways that many women, particularly of a certain time period, culture and class think which is more cohesive than not, which are distinctly different from the perspectives that men of the same time, culture and class perceive the world.\n\nI'm not sold on this.  Maybe if you gave me an example?",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1quyhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qw463",
                    "author": "jstnpotthoff",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThis is the biggest problem I have with your view. Your real-life interactions with most women are likely superficial--you understand how they interact *with you*. But you're likely unaware of their inner monologues, their priorities, and their true opinions. Everything you know is colored by your presence. Everybody has insecurities and hidden desires unknown to even the people closest to them. If you're writing women simply as a prop for your protagonist, this is fine. But if you want to make your women characters more realistically three-dimensional, it could help your understanding of these things immensely to read female authors who are not afraid to show their insecurities and innermost thoughts.\n\nThe End of Everything by Megan Abbott comes to mind.\n\nFear of Flying by Erica Jong, Postcards From the Edge by Carrie Fisher, and anything by Lionel Shriver...it also helps that they're all incredible writers.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxe3s",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nOf course every writer draws on their personal experience, the point is that reading someone's writing offers something that these IRL experiences don't. Principally and obviously your IRL experiences are merely your own and filtered through your perspective, life experience, etc., meaning that the other person's perspective is lacking. \n\nI'm sure you can think of examples from your own life where you and someone else have had different perceptions of the same exact experience or interaction.\n\nFor example, last night I was walking home alone. It wasn't late at all but was after dark and there weren't many people around. A guy about my age approached me and then asked me which direction a specific street is before continuing on. To him I'm sure it was a rather mundane exchange. However, because he was a bigger masc presenting guy, and because I'm a small physically weak and obviously gay guy, as soon as I noticed he was approaching me my mind raced to determine whether he was a potential threat. We had completely different experiences despite the same real-life interaction. If that guy went home and happened to read a story I wrote about that experience, he'd learn a lot and come away with a much more accurate idea of my perspective compared to only forming the idea based on his experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r8ju9",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I think there is a good chance he knew what you were feeling, rather than thinking it was mundane.  When scared, we tend to show it through body-language and actions.  For example, if someone is constantly looking away, or trying to end the conversation, I can deduce they want to get out of there.  Fear can also show by a startled jump, or frozen stop.  All of these things can be observed.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1qxe3s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1qxpjd",
                    "author": "LurkerFailsLurking",
                    "body": "1) The logical extension of your argument is that there's no reason for an author to ever read anything by anyone but themselves, which is obviously untrue. While being well read doesn't guarantee that you will be a better writer, it unquestionably helps.\n\n2) For any author there are topics, ideas, perspectives, styles, etc that they are more comfortable with and tend to rely on in their writing. Authors who are comfortable writing about similar topics, etc tend to have other things in common too. Among other things, there are demographic patterns in the distribution of topics, etc that writers are comfortable with. This does not mean that literally all writers in certain demographic groups are the same, it only acknowledges there are common tendencies.\n\n2, corollary) Expanding the available breadth of topics, perspectives, styles, and ideas at your disposal makes you a better writer. One way to expand these \"tools\" at your disposal is to read a wide range of works. One way to read a wider range of works is to read a wider demographic range of authors.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0660",
                    "author": "cyrusposting",
                    "body": "\\>There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. \n\nIf you were writing a book about China you would probably read a couple books by Chinese authors because while Chinese people are not all the same, they do have a different culture and you need some understanding of that culture to write Chinese characters. To avoid getting the opinions and beliefs of one person, you would probably want to read a lot of books by Chinese authors, watch Chinese films, research China, and talk to Chinese people. \n\nThis is not really disputed by the statement that \"people are different\" because one of the things that makes people different is their cultural experience. If you have one Chinese character in your book and he does not speak Chinese or behave in any way that is distinctly Chinese, that's fine. People are different. But if 49.6% of people in your book are Chinese and they all act like French people(their food preferences are all French, their clothing is French, their favorite authors are French, their parents expect French things from them, and their stories about their childhoods all take place in France), you're getting to a point where your lack of knowledge is pressing against reality and you are missing opportunities to use culture to characterize people.\n\nWomen are not a different culture than men, not in the way Chinese culture is different from French culture. But Women do experience their cultures differently, and so to a lesser degree than the difference between Chinese people and French people, women are different than men \\*even assuming\\* that all other things about their life experience are exactly the same as those of men. \n\nWe know that this assumption isn't true. But even if we were to assume that the only difference between men and women is that women experience their culture differently than men, we can assume logically that it is a good idea to try to immerse ourselves in their cultural experience to understand them better, for all the same reasons we would do that for Chinese people. The best way to do that is to read books by women, watch films by women, research the things that make their lives different, and talk to them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r0bhz",
                    "author": "Mindless_Wrap1758",
                    "body": "There's the benefit of seeing how the other half lives and thinks.  There are fundamental differences between cultures, genders, sexes, and sexual orientations. These should be respected and loved without cultural relativism or a similar claim that we should have gender blindness, the way people tout colorblindness as the cure for racism. In my view, we should aim for an unmarginalized and Rawlsian (equitable) society. \n\nOur shared humanity is what matters the most and on that level we can empathize with anyone. Some men grew up in a mostly female household or had a strong relationship with their mother. So some of us have a deeper well to draw on. But there's also the fact that these people inhabited roles in our lives. I was very close to my mother and lived with her almost 30 years. But I can't escape that we were always mother and son and I haven't even lived half of her lifespan. As much as we shared, there are important elements of our lives that we didn't share with each other.\n\nThen there's also the fact for many their gender or whatever isn't as central to their identity as other people's are. I assume that as someone who has suicidal depression most of my life, I could relate more to Sylvia Plath's semi autobiographical book than a woman who never had a bad day in her life. But the opposite could be argued because gender played a great role in her life. Or you as a writer could see that as being the most central aspect of her life.\n\nA famous female studio bassist said the note is either good or not, not masculine or feminine. So the quality of an author is paramount. Queer author Alison Bechdel came up with the Bechdel test. She asked how many works always have a woman talking to a man or if she's talking to a woman she's talking about a man. The same can go the other way, but I wouldn't doubt more great books would fail her test than a similar test applied to male characters. There's no uniform female or gay or whatever experience. But there's more than meets the eye that can be missed by people not in a group.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rbubf",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> So some of us have a deeper well to draw on.\n\nI think it would be a rare exception to not have women connections in real life.  Most people had a mother growing up, most men end up in romantic relationships with women, many men have sisters, aunts, grandmas...Women are in school and the workplace now-a-days.  To not have a deep enough well to craft a good woman character seems unlikely IMO.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r0bhz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1k85",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "You need to read female authors because they are a critical part of the canon.  You can't just substitute Mary Shelley for someone else, if you're going to be a writer you should have read authors that include women such as Mary Shelley, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, George Eliot, and Emily Dickinson.  It might be okay to have missed Josephine Tey, Isabel Allende, Agatha Christie, or Maya Angelou - but if you have missed all of them just because they're women, I don't see how you can write well.\n\nSo yeah, authors (male or female) should have read novels written by women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r1ovc",
                    "author": "toooooold4this",
                    "body": "Women write robust female characters because we have things to say about womanhood and want our varied points of view to be center stage rather than a side character or romantic interest. \n\nThe books you mentioned (Harry Potter and Twilight) are giving you a very narrow insight into how women think. \n\nWhen men write women's characters, they write them from their own POV. When you're writing a female character from your interactions with women, it's still from your POV. When you read characters' words and behaviors, those viewpoints are processed a different way. You step into their bodies and minds.\n\nOne of the things male writers do for female characters is write them the way men see them or want to see them, so women often find themselves admiring their own bodies in the mirror or dressing in heels to do basic tasks around the house or wearing clothes that are too small to show off their figure (which doesn't do anything but make us uncomfortable and lumpy, btw).\n\nAs a writer, I would think you would want to read broadly to get as many voices as possible in your head.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1r4p2y",
                    "author": "Mysterious-Maybe-184",
                    "body": "I man",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rzj87",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1r4p2y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rcp0x",
                    "author": "DreamingSilverDreams",
                    "body": ">Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nStatistically speaking, the likelihood of you not being able to write a good female character is extremely high just because you are a man. The absolute majority of female characters written by men are terrible. Moreover, these terrible characters are supported by a long, time-honoured tradition. In addition, literature (especially fantasy and sci-fi that you seem to like) geared toward men tends to have very few well-written female characters. \n\nConsidering all of these, it is normal to assume that you, being a man, lack understanding of women, their thoughts, and motivations. Thus, you receive advice to read female authors.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nThere is no 'a way women think'. However, there are shared experiences that all (or almost all) women have. Some of these experiences are related to biology, e.g. the start of menstruation or physical changes during puberty or pregnancy. Some experiences are cultural and limited to specific societies, but still, all women in those societies have similar experiences. For example, there can be social pressure to always look good, smile, and express an overall gentle and cheerful attitude. \n\nMen do not share these experiences. Their biology is different. They are socialised differently. They face different social pressures and expectations.\n\n A lot of men have no idea about uniquely female experiences and challenges. A female author may introduce these to men. This is why reading books written by women is important. It is a window into a world that many men not only never experience, but do not even suspect to exist.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\nThe limitation of this approach is that a) you see only what women want to show you (I assume you are not a stalker) and b) you see only what you can and want to see.\n\nEvery person has multiple faces or personas that they use to interact with other people. It is extremely unlikely for anyone to see all these personas even if the two people are close. Think about your mother. You are, probably, very familiar with her 'mother' persona. However, do you know her 'lover' persona that she uses with her lover? Or her 'friend' persona that she uses with her friends? Or her 'boss' persona that dominates her work hours? Or whatever other personas your mother has? And, of course, as many other commenters mentioned you have no access to your mother's inner thoughts. So, while you may attempt to document her in various environments and interactions, you will never be able to see the inner workings of her mind.\n\nIt is also unreasonable to expect that someone would share all their reasoning and motivation with you. Even someone, who is extremely cooperative and can fully discard social norms and conventions and talk freely about any topic, does not understand themselves fully. A lot of things you would hear are rationalisations and justifications, not the actual motives and reasons.\n\nYou, yourself, are also a great limitation. As someone who lacks relevant experiences, you are very likely to misunderstand, misinterpret, under- or over-empathise a lot of details in your interactions with women. You are also very likely to hold a number of cultural biases and stereotypes that would affect your interactions and their interpretations.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\r3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality.\n\nIt is not a big deal when one author does it. It is a huge deal when the majority of authors do it. And this is precisely the situation we are in. The majority of female characters in books, films, plays, etc. are representations of male fantasies. They have nothing to do with real women but they do affect real women by creating expectations and unwanted social pressures.\n\nIf most books, films, or plays depict women as insignificant decorative elements existing for the pleasure of male readers and male characters how would women be seen in a society? How men would see women?\n\n&#x200B;\n\n> I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThis is a very bad comparison. Most books you've read, probably, have decent male characters. Therefore, inaccurate depictions of men feel novel and refreshing.\n\nMost female characters, on the other hand, are poorly written. It is neither enjoyable nor interesting to see yet another terrible female character. It is annoying, frustrating, and upsetting. \n\n&#x200B;\n\n>\rThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\r\n\nIMO, every author should strive to create relatable characters. Relatable =/= realistic. Most protagonists in fantasy and sci-fi are not realistic but they are relatable. Most female characters are not relatable because many authors prefer their personal fantasies to real women and the rest are just bad at writing women. This is especially prevalent in male-oriented genres.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rd13h",
                    "author": "FongYuLan",
                    "body": "As an author, you should read a wide range of books and be able to duplicate their voices as an exercise, and maintain your own writing voice for your own work. If you can do that, you\u2019re a master writer with control over words.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rdqoa",
                    "author": "Theevildothatido",
                    "body": "> 1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\nWhen I was much younger I read some note by a television critic who claimed about *Ally McBeal* that David E. Kelley, the writer \u201cunderstood how women think\u201d. At the time I considered this a ridiculous statement, for indeed, there was no singular way \u201chow women think\u201d and in fact quite sexist.\n\nI still believe that but I also realized interacting with some people that there's more nuance to it. While I don't believe there is such a thing as \u201cunderstanding how women think\u201d, there is definitely such a thing as \u201cnot understanding how women think\u201d, or any group really, which is more so persons who believe \u201cwomen think\u201d in a certain way and it's absolutely wrong as in no woman, nay person on the planet realistically thinks like that or at least a very small number.\n\nPerhaps that is what the critic thought. I first construed that comment as \u201cAlly McBeal acts how women act\u201d as in the critic thought they all acted the same and like Ally McBeal, but perhaps it was more so \u201cFinally, a character that acts like a plausible woman that could exist.\u201d, not necessarily that they all think like that.\n\nHowever, I also don't really think that reading such fiction actually leads people to gain a new perspective either. People draw the conclusions they want to, and I find that people who \u201cdon't understand how women think\u201d in general simply \u201cdon't understand how people think\u201d because they want the world to be in a certain way it's not. I've had some discussions with such persons at least and they read such fiction but simply drew absolutely bizarre conclusions from it but about humans in general and the characters therein.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1rvc8l",
                    "author": "No-Development4601",
                    "body": "I mean, the idea that you \"don't need to read works by over half of the current authors\" is a very weird take to have. Women are (by about 0.5%) the majority of authors currently. I think if you're not reading books by women, you're reading only within narrow categories that are male dominated and/or purposely avoiding women.  \n\nGenerally authors benefit from exposure to a variety of points of views, to allow them to craft more interesting stories. If your story doesn't have anything that surprises or grabs the reader's attention they will put the book down and forget to pick it back up. This is why a lot of authors don't succeed in selling their stories until they're older (40+) - they need life experiences to have information to mine to come up with an interesting and coherent story.\n\nWomen don't all \"think\" the same way, certainly not across cultures or age-ranges. A teenage girl in the US wouldn't have a lot in common with an elderly woman in rural India. And women are all individuals, but they tend to have an overlapping set of shared experiences. \n\nOne thing you may want to consider if you want to publish, is -- how many readers do you want to attract? If you write a fantasy women in a way women find offensive, you can kiss 64% of the market goodbye. Women are much more likely to buy books than men . Therefore you should try not to write female characters women find offensive if you want commercial success.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1s0zc7",
                    "author": "Nepene",
                    "body": "One of the most important aspects of a lot of book is having interesting characters who people relate to who act as wish fulfilment for people. This is a major factor behind the success of books. People read about heroes who are living lives they want to live, with friends they want to have and enemies they want to crush. \n\nPart of the value of reading female written books is getting a better grasp on that. You can do that with in depth interviews as well, but reading is a bit easier and more reliable. \n\nOne thing that is often tricky is getting right people who embrace some aspect of femininity and reject others. As a man, do you know which aspects of femininity women tend to fantasize about? Do you know what they want to reject? Do you know what pressures women fantasize about overcoming?\n\nThe success or failure in portraying these things is often very nuanced and so finding good examples helps. Let me give a few examples. \n\n1. Encanto was partly very popular due to Luisa, a more muscular and bulky woman who also was quite feminine in ways, and was holding up the family and carrying their burdens. A very common female fantasy is being appreciated for doing everything for their families enough that others help up and they can rest. She was more popular than Isabela because less women relate to being a perfectionist whose life needs a bit of chaos. \n\n2. Hermione was popular because a lot of women are nerdy outcasts who read a lot, study hard, and aren't appreciated for their intelligence and helpfulness, and she looked badass when she tried at the dance. \n\n3. Brandon Sanderson did Jasnah Kholin very well because he extensively interviewed women on how they saw themselves and atheism and tied it together into a badass, murderous scholar who looks fantastic and feminine while doing it. \n\nYou can't really get a very detailed understanding of the archetypes of women that women tend to fantasize about by observing women and limited experience. Commercial success is heavily about crafting a friend group for readers of men and women who they like fantasizing about being and being friends with, and so while every woman thinks differently, understanding what sorts of people are popular and unpopular among women helps a lot.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1sw4au",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "idk, I feel like what people like is going to vary from person to person, more than groups wanting one type.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1s0zc7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1t244w",
                    "author": "TheBookishFoodie",
                    "body": "No one needs to read anything they don\u2019t want to.\n\nAnd if your audience is incel virgins living in their mom\u2019s basement, it would behoove you not to do so. Just keep writing women characters who admire their tits in the mirror and then boobily boob down the stairs. Maybe you\u2019ll even get lucky and Nick Adams will pay you to ghostwrite his tweets about eating at Hooters with his alpha boys.\n\nNow if you want to be a good writer, yes, you\u2019ll need to read women.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16pfgca",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Common advice I get on writing subs/forums is that I should read books written by women (I man). The reason given being so I can understand how women think and not just write them from a male POV. These people giving this advice do so without having read any of my work, so they are giving it based solely on the fact that I am a man (and from whatever context the conversation is on and my posting history).\n\nMy view is that I have no need to do this. My reasoning is:\n\n1.) There isn't a \"way women think.\" People are different. By reading a novel written by a women, I would just be gaining insight into how one particular woman thinks, and I should not apply that to all women.\n\n2.) I use real-life interactions with women to inform how I write them, so I think that lends itself towards realism. I think this also applies to most male writers as by being a human you are bound to interact with a good amount of women in life, so everyone should have real experiences to draw from in writing their characters.\n\n3.) Even if I (or a male author) writes a woman character based on personal fantasy, it isn't that big of a deal. It might not be realistic, but that doesn't make it a bad thing necessarily. Readers still get to see how that author views women, which can be interesting and enjoyable even if it doesn't align with reality. I've read a few books written by women who I think don't portray men very accurately, but I still enjoyed the books and don't think it was a big detraction from the story. If anything, it was interesting to get a women's perspective on men, even if I don't think it was accurate.\n\nThe one exception I would say is if a male author wants realistic characters, and is having trouble writing women. In that case, I think it could be useful for the male writer to read books written by women to bolster his skills at writing women realistically.\n\nAlso, I'd say there is nothing wrong with wanting to read stories written by women. I just don't see the need to suggest male authors to do this.\n\n**Deltas**:\n\n* Reading different types of authors and experiences can help with creativity.  If a guy only reads stuff written by men, it could do well for them to branch out and read something by a woman.\n\n* Reading multiple books by women can help show common experiences/thoughts of women\n\n* There are physical experiences women feel that are probably best understood by reading it from a woman, such as childbirth.\n\n* There are social differences between men and women that can be learned through reading, such as women tending to fear men more during first meetings/dates, or being encouraged to stay at home and be a wife rather than work.\n\n* Being more comprehensive in story-telling can be good, with wider perspectives.\n\n* The fact that mostly women read and write romance indicates there are preferences woman like that are different from men worth learning about through reading.\n\n* Writing could give deeper insights into a person's thoughts than conversation or being in person with them would.  They might feel more safe writing on paper (even if funnily enough it ends up being much more public)\n\n* There are subreddits dedicated to mocking men writing women, whereas not so for women writing men.  This could indicate a bigger issue with men writing women.\n\n* Men receive far more POV and characters in stories, leading to women being able to write men better than men can write women.\n\nEdit: Got some good discussion.  Turning off notifications for this post.",
                    "date": "2023-09-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is no need for male fiction authors to read works written by women, with one exception",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16pfgca/cmv_there_is_no_need_for_male_fiction_authors_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1tt3e4",
                    "author": "tbigaming",
                    "body": "A lot if people have talked abiut the expierence of reading and the influence it has on you. Yet as a fellow writer I feel like from a linguistic perspective and working on the way you write there is a noticable differnece between how women write and how men write. Not opening yourself up to this you would mis a lot of insight of how you write and how being a man influences this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16pfgca"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zas1y",
                "author": "toooooold4this",
                "body": "No, you don't have to be a hero to have a good life. That's the point. You just have to connection with other people. \n\nHe couldn't go to war because of his hearing. His brother was the war hero. He failed to do the big important jobs he had dreamed of, but he helped other people achieve their dreams. The Martinis bought their dream home. He didn't have a glamorous wife. He had a wife you adored him instead. Sam got the glamorous wife. He could have taken advantage of Violet, but he didn't. He respected her enough to help her when she needed it.\n\nThat's why he left a hole in the world.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zduhf",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">He couldn't go to war because of his hearing. His brother was the war hero. He failed to do the big important jobs he had dreamed of, but he helped other people achieve their dreams. The Martinis bought their dream home. He didn't have a glamorous wife. He had a wife who adored him instead. Sam got the glamorous wife. He could have taken advantage of Violet, but he didn't. He respected her enough to help her when she needed it.\n\n!delta\n\nThe way you put it, he sounds like a failure. But he achieved great things that compensated for his failure, and that is why he is a well-loved character. Maybe there is something positive to say about myself or most other people, and it's just hidden by their failures.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zas1y"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zdwz7",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/toooooold4this ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/toooooold4this)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zduhf"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zbkz7",
                "author": "A1Dilettante",
                "body": "Consider this take:  \n  \nGeorge is not a beacon of virtue to strive towards. This is a man who sacrifices his life for a small town instead of living the life he wants. He carries the financial burden of keeping his town afloat. This altruism will inevitably lead him to financial ruin and jail time, hence his suicide ideation. Realizing how he wasted his life trying to play Jesus in a greedy, capitalistic world drives him to that bridge like it would any man. \n  \nI don't know what film you were watching, but A Wonderful Life is not an uplifting tale that should invoke existential dread. Had this taken place in real life, George Bailey would be dead. A selfless man like him doesn't make it in this world. He is not someone to strive for, because there is no angel coming to pull you back from the brink of suicide. When you give so much of yourself and left empty financially, emotionally, and spiritually it's anything but a wonderful life.  \n  \nSo yeah, don't feel like you need to be like George. The man was a Giving Tree and damn near lost all his limbs pleasing others. You're human, not Jesus. Find a balance between generosity and greed.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zf404",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">I don't know what film you were watching, but A Wonderful Life is not an uplifting tale that should invoke existential dread. Had this taken place in real life, George Bailey would be dead. A selfless man like him doesn't make it in this world. He is not someone to strive for, because there is no angel coming to pull you back from the brink of suicide. When you give so much of yourself and left empty financially, emotionally, and spiritually it's anything but a wonderful life.\n\n!delta\n\nWe should accept that kindness is not rewarded IRL. Just look on the news, and see the most malevolent people succeeding in life. The existential dread should not come from feeling inadequate compared to George Bailey's achievements, but rather from the fact that the world runs in a way that punishes basic human decency.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zbkz7"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zf773",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/A1Dilettante ([3\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/A1Dilettante)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zf404"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zm07w",
                "author": "thisiswrongtool",
                "body": "I've read the comments here, and though I agree with most of them to varying degrees, I'd also like to offer something I haven't read (apologies if I just missed it).\n\nI enjoy the movie It's a Wonderful Life because it reminds me that humans are part of **communities**, whether or not they realize it, and that a person's contribution to that community often goes unnoticed, but is incredibly valuable nonetheless. George did do some noteworthy things that were noteworthy only with the benefit of hindsight and context, but it was his place in the community in which he lived that left such a great absence in people's lives. They could have made the same movie with any one of the characters in the film as the 'main' character and shown how the value in a person's life is not how they view themselves, it's in the relationships and connections that are made to everyone they know. Part of the whole point was to show that one person can never know their own true worth.\n\nYou could say that's a sentimental notion or that it only counts because George did big, fancy, impressive things, but that was really only a storytelling device to make it easier to show how far out the ripples in the pond **go** from an action. If this movie were made today, they'd likely choose things that are far more subtle since our notions of film-making have become more subtle.  I'd argue that the message isn't so much about how George is super special and look how awful the world would be without this one, specific, super special guy and his big accomplishments; the message is about how the connections between us enrich us all, and how much poorer we all are without a single knot in that great, interconnected web.\n\nSo......I get feeling existential dread from watching the movie, but in context, the things you point to are less meaningful to the **point** of the movie as a whole, and more a characteristic of flim-making at that time. If this were remade today, the whole thing might be both far more subtle and a good bit more complex to show just how far out the ripples go from the tiny actions of our lives. Much like watching old Star Trek episodes can be super corny....... until you take them into the context of the time and style in which they were made. It's A Wonderful Life was made around the same time period as the Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, Gone With the Wind......these are not subtle pieces of fim-making.\n\nAt the end of the day, the big amazing people who do big amazing things and achieve greatness in the textbook of history didn't do so in a vacuum. There is an incalculably great swell of human beings that went **into** making their great big amazing thing happen, and most of them had nothing to do with the actual big thing itself. The big amazing people who do big amazing things are the places where the threads happen to come together, but their achievements do not realistically belong to them and them alone, and often times our contributions can only be appreciated long after we are gone.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zmq1p",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">At the end of the day, the big amazing people who do big amazing things and achieve greatness in the textbook of history didn't do so in a vacuum. There is an incalculably great swell of human beings that went into making their great big amazing thing happen, and most of them had nothing to do with the actual big thing itself. The big amazing people who do big amazing things are the places where the threads happen to come together, but their achievements do not realistically belong to them and them alone, and often times our contributions can only be appreciated long after we are gone.\n\n!delta\n\nThe greatness of the fictional character of George Bailey wasn't solely derived from hard work and shrewdness - his success was part of being a member of a successful community. He couldn't have achieved that in a vacuum.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zm07w"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zmua4",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/thisiswrongtool ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/thisiswrongtool)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zmq1p"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zmixb",
                "author": "svenson_26",
                "body": "This is a very selfish takeaway from the film.  The message of the movie isn\u2019t *you'd* leave a large hole in the world if you were gone.   The message is *a good man* will leave a large hole in the world if he were gone. \n  \nIt\u2019s uplifting to see a story about a man who had bad luck his whole life but remained a good man, and when he was at the very end of his rope a miracle happened and he was able to see all the good he\u2019s done, and all the lives he\u2019s touched.  \n  \nYou are not George Bailey.   But there might be a George Bailey in your life: someone who has helped you in life or who is a good person who is down on their luck.  You can step up and help them.    \n  \nAfter watching that film, you should be inspired to be more charitable, not have existential freak that nobody is going to be charitable to you.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zn1w7",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">This is a very selfish takeaway from the film.  The message of the movie isn\u2019t *you'd* leave a large hole in the world if you were gone.   The message is *a good man* will leave a large hole in the world if he were gone.\n\n!delta\n\nI am not a good man. I am not comparable to George Bailey. The film's message not applying to me is exactly as intended.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "k1zmixb"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zn3x9",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/svenson_26 ([75\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/svenson_26)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zn1w7"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zmvap",
                "author": "jmilan3",
                "body": "I understand how you may feel the movie is about existential dread but you may be looking at it wrong. If you watch it from beginning to end you see that George Bailey thought his life was meaningless but he finds out how many people he helped and how different their lives would have been if it weren\u2019t for him. He discovers his life has meaning and purpose through the deeds of kindness he bestowed on others. When I lost my 17 yr old son kids came pouring into my yard. I knew maybe 5 of them but my big yard was literally filled kids. Most didn\u2019t even know each other but they all had stories of how they met Matt. Many told me he just walked up to them and said You look like you need a friend, my name is Matt and I\u2019d like to be your friend. Some kids said they were suicidal and he\u2019d pick them out and go up to them and say, Don\u2019t do it. Your life has value. Talk to me, I\u2019m listening and will hear you. Again, they had no idea how he knew their dark thoughts. I could go on and on with stories about how 1 boy changed so many people\u2019s lives and he never even knew what he did for them. Because of what I learned from those kids about my own son I now make sure I actually tell people when they have had a positive impact on me. Usually we don\u2019t know how when we do something relatively small it can change a persons whole outlook even for just a day. That\u2019s the story of It\u2019s A Wonderful Life. Existentialism is the philosophical belief we are each responsible for creating purpose or meaning in our own lives. George Bailey was doing that without even realizing it.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1znwpg",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nMaybe I have touched people's lives. It's not like I'm a recluse who doesn't talk to people IRL.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1zmvap"
            },
            {
                "id": "k1zo0lj",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jmilan3 ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jmilan3)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k1znwpg"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k20r9y1",
                "author": "nyavegasgwod",
                "body": "What the movie is trying to tell you is that the only thing necessary to have a meaningful life is to invest love in the people around you. Celebrities & professionally successful ppl get all the glory, but think about the people who have actually made an impact on your life. It's probably parents, siblings, teachers, friends. People who are important because of who they were to you, not because of the things they did. And the same is true for you - you have the opportunity to be that person for the people around you & all you really have to do is be there for them.\n\nAnother Jimmy Stewart movie with a similar theme that I think drives it home even harder is Harvey. The lead in that is a possibly-schizophrenic middle aged drunkard with no job who lives with his older sister & her daughter. But he's so warm and kind to everyone he meets, you can't help but recognize the value of his humanity",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z4a9f",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">What the movie is trying to tell you is that the only thing necessary to have a meaningful life is to invest love in the people around you. Celebrities & professionally successful ppl get all the glory, but think about the people who have actually made an impact on your life. It's probably parents, siblings, teachers, friends. People who are important because of who they were to you, not because of the things they did. And the same is true for you - you have the opportunity to be that person for the people around you & all you really have to do is be there for them.\n\n!delta\n\nThe rich and powerful people have affected my life in, at most, abstract ways only. They do have an impact on average people, but not to the regularity or effectiveness as one's own family, friends, teachers and coworkers.",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k20r9y1"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z4cl4",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/nyavegasgwod ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/nyavegasgwod)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k3z4a9f"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k21q16v",
                "author": "hickdog896",
                "body": "It is hard, ever, to know what effect the actions in your life have had on others, and you also have to consider his age in the film. To the first point, I have definitely never been a hero, but I have told someone In a tough place that it will get better, or given a panhandle a few bucks, or offered encouragement in the form of a tale of overcoming adversary. I can never know if any of those things made the slightest difference, but maybe they did. At my high school reunion, a guy told me would never have graduated if hadn't cheated off of my papers. So if I wasn't there....? \n\nTo the second point, maybe your moment hasn't arrived yet. I have kids, and one thing I am pretty sure of is that I have been a good dad. Somif I'm wasn't there for that...  I also have a fair number of acedemic and handicraft skills that I share freely. I think that may have made a difference, too.\n\nIn short, don't sell yourself short, you may not be GB; few of us are; but if you engage, try to help, and try tumbling people up, you probably make more of a difference than you realize",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z4neh",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">It is hard, ever, to know what effect the actions in your life have had on others, and you also have to consider his age in the film. \n\n!delta\n\nAs you show, George Bailey is a man in his 40s-50s, so I still have time to improve myself.",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k21q16v"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z4oug",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/hickdog896 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/hickdog896)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k3z4neh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k227bun",
                "author": "7___7",
                "body": "You might be experiencing that because Jimmy Stewart actually went to war in real life, and was suffering from actual PTSD when he made the movie.  So even though the movie might not be what you want, you may be more emphatic and actually feeling dread just from the actor rather than the theme of the movie.  \n\n&#x200B;\n\nhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3825552/Jimmy-Stewart-suffered-extreme-PTSD-lost-130-men-fighter-pilot-WW-II-acted-anguish-filming-s-Wonderful-Life.html",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z5nre",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nI've suffered pretty severe PTSD myself. [I survived a car crash](https://www.9news.com.au/national/man-dies-following-drumborg-crash/42557058-772f-4750-b0b8-4db8050e104d) that, while I walked away uninjured, left me too scared to take up several job opportunities that required driving. Maybe that's why I was able to feel so much dread from watching Jimmy Stewart.",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k227bun"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z5q58",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/7___7 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/7___7)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k3z5nre"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k22hk34",
                "author": "Gaming_Gent",
                "body": "What I took from the movie is that you\u2019ve touched people in ways you can never truly know, and your life has value if you just live to be a good person. \n\nGeorge didn\u2019t know the power of his actions. Some of those things could have been things he didn\u2019t even think about again.\n\nYou don\u2019t know what your guardian angel would show you if they took you through a similar experience, but I guarantee there would be a number of things you\u2019ve done in your life that had a profound impact on others that is unknown to you entirely. \n\nNow, if you watch the movie and realize that morally you\u2019ve not been treating people the way you should then I agree, it is a wake up call that you need to make changes.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z5rb7",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Now, if you watch the movie and realize that morally you\u2019ve not been treating people the way you should then I agree, it is a wake up call that you need to make changes.\n\n!delta\n\nIt's easier to make changes to improve myself than to just ignore the message of this film. Plus, everyone will benefit if I improve myself.",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k22hk34"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z5upe",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Gaming_Gent ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Gaming_Gent)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k3z5rb7"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k239v3n",
                "author": "strawhatArlong",
                "body": "Remember that *It's a Wonderful Life* was made in 1946. The themes and storylines from early movies tend to have less complex themes and characterization. Also remember that the Hayes Code was in effect during this period. So, \"good\" characters were portrayed as beautiful and successful, \"bad\" characters had to be punished, etc. It was very black and white (no pun intended) - good characters were superhuman in their goodness, or if they were flawed, they overcame their flaws by the end of the movie. It would have probably been very strange for that time period to show a film where a genuinely average, flawed human being was shown to be worthy of being saved by God's angels.\n\nAlso, [suicide prevention](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK109918/) wasn't really a 'thing' in the U.S. until the 1950s. So the filmmakers weren't really thinking about how an actual suicidal/depressed person might view the film, they were trying to tell an interesting story, and interesting stories are easiest when the themes are very simple and clear. It's very easy to get audiences to root for a heroic figure like George Bailey, and the movie only has about 2 hours to get you to like him.\n\nIn real life, the people in your social circle have come to know you over a period of months or years. There are very few people as pure-hearted and morally straight as George Bailey in real life, so nobody expects or requires you to be completely selfless in order to love and care for you.\n\nI don't think of it as an existentially dread-filled movie because I view it through the filter of the time period it was made, just like I do my best to filter out the casual sexism that comes along with most 1940s films. The central theme of the story is \"your life matters, and you've touched the people's lives in ways you will never know\" - that's all you really need to take away from the film. Everything else is just a reflection of the time period.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z68ck",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nThe film was not intended to cause existential dread, it was merely complying with regulations that forced it to have the good guy win.",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k239v3n"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z69zk",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/strawhatArlong ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/strawhatArlong)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k3z68ck"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16qtlat",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k2p8rzk",
                "author": "ShowerGrapes",
                "body": "i think the point of the \"no man is a failure who has friends\" is not that the friends will help him, ultimately, but that he, over his lifetime, helps his friends. unselfishly helping people is what saves george, not his friends. his friends helping his is just the side effect.",
                "date": "2023-09-29",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16qtlat"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z7i6p",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nThe starting point of my post is that a friend of mine watched this *It's a Wonderful Life*. If I have friends, I have people to fall back on in case of genuine emergencies.",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k2p8rzk"
            },
            {
                "id": "k3z7kmw",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ShowerGrapes ([4\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ShowerGrapes)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-08",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k3z7i6p"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z0zhv",
                    "author": "Veblen1",
                    "body": "It's just a movie, with nonsensical characters (angels), it's not a documentary.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z49gj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I understand that it's a work of fiction. My post is to point out that I see it as a movie that fills me with existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z0zhv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z163v",
                    "author": "shadowfires21",
                    "body": "I would just like to say, I think you have misinterpreted the point of the movie. George felt the same way, that he hadn't done anything worth living for. But Clarence showed him that his life *did* make an impact, and it was because of relatively small things. True, saving his brother wasn't small, but you never know what might save someone's life. It doesn't have to be as dramatic as a person drowning - maybe you stopped someone stepping off the street at the wrong time. Or maybe an action you took ended up saving a life in a chain reaction you never knew.\n\nThat's the whole point. George was just a good person who cared about others. He didn't think he had a huge impact, but he did, mostly in small ways. The town came together because he is a good person who helped people in small ways, not because of a bunch of big actions. Yeah, he saved a life with the pharmacy incident, but what he really did was correct his boss when he saw it was a mistake. Something of similar impact could happen in many different jobs. You just may not know it.\n\nAnd that's the point of the movie. You have no idea how many lives you have touched, and how many paths you have changed. You don't have to be a big hero. Small actions can have huge impacts further down the chain. If you had never existed you *would* be leaving a hole in the world. You don't know who has been affected by the small things you have done. You don't know how things would be different without you, and it's possible that you have made huge changes. A smile at the right moment, a friendly word, a different turn taken. You don't know how, but it does have an effect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3x5j",
                    "author": "Chatterbunny123",
                    "body": "This is a good point, but it made me think of what a version of this movie would be like if the main character was Hitler. Imagine Hitler trying to commit suicide and god sends down a guardian. Oof, that would be a big whoppsie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z163v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z1fuc",
                    "author": "AhimsaVitae",
                    "body": "While the examples in the movie are a little larger than normal experience (for dramatic effect), very small kindnesses can make major differences. \n\nYou hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5a72",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You hold the door open for a mother struggling with toddlers, that eases a stressful situation for her, as a result she doesn\u2019t snap at the children, thus a formative adverse childhood experience doesn\u2019t take place that otherwise would have shaped that kid\u2019s life.\n\nI hold the door open for women because that's how I was raised. And from what I've seen IRL, some people will always find a reason to snap at children.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z1fuc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z25vs",
                    "author": "Equivalent-Fix-7313",
                    "body": "No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5i9i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">No, the message is that his life is worth living, where'd you get the rest of that from?\n\nPrecisely. **George Bailey**'s life is worth living because he's a humble hero and an indispensable pillar of his community. \n\nWhen I thought through the movie after watching it, I realised that the same can't be said for most people, including myself.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z25vs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z2lbz",
                    "author": "jrod5029",
                    "body": "You sound like George Bailey at the beginning of the movie. The whole point of the movie is the George underestimates his importance and impact on the world. George\u2019s influence extends beyond what he perceives.\n\nIs it a little over the top and maudlin with saving his brother the war hero or mean old Mr. Potter? Sure. The movie isn\u2019t beloved for its subtlety. The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d\n\nGeorge isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\n\nMaybe you think nobody would miss you, but having lost a few friends and colleagues to suicide, I can confidently tell you that you are wrong about that. At least the friend that wanted to watch \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life\u201d with you would miss you. Your family would miss you. I read your post while in the waiting room at urgent care and it improved my day to think about one of my favorite movies. So my life would at least be slightly more boring without it.\n\nMaybe you\u2019re a coward and you never stopped corporate greed but you matter regardless of that because your existence improves the lives of others in ways you don\u2019t understand. Even if it\u2019s just a stranger on the internet.\n\nYou are 100% wrong about \u201cIt\u2019s A Wonderful Life.\u201d Thanks for improving my day!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ez5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The movie is beloved becomes it cracks you over the head with the message \u201cyou are loved and you are important no matter who you are.\u201d  \n>  \n>George isn\u2019t perfect either. He ignores his kids to go drinking at Martini\u2019s. He\u2019s jealous of his brother. But he still matters and that\u2019s the point the film is making. The movie resonates because nobody is perfect but everyone matters to someone.\r  \n\r\n\nGeorge Bailey is loved because of what he has achieved. And he has also compensated for his flaws. \n\nThe difference is that most people aren't going to achieve what he has achieved, or achieve some things great enough to compensate for their flaws. This is what fills me with existential dread, because I'm one of those people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z2lbz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z3glg",
                    "author": "sapphireminds",
                    "body": "I feel like you're looking at it from the wrong direction. \n\nThe point is that small things can have big impacts, and we often can't recognize those impacts because life is one big rube goldberg machine.  \n\nFor example: You said something nice to someone, and in the moment they were going to commit suicide, they remembered that comment even if they didn't remember who said it, and didn't go through with it and went on to cure a cancer\n\nWe are all doing things in our lives that affect others in ways we cannot anticipate.  That's why it is good to be as caring, nice and helpful as possible (without being harmed yourself of course) because maybe telling that tourist to turn left made it so they didn't get hit by a car will mean that hundreds or thousands will live or have their lives improved.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z75kl",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, isn't the point of the movie that George Bailey didn't merely rest his laurels at little acts of kindness, but that he managed to achieve a lifetime of heroism?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z3glg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z485b",
                    "author": "Worcestersauce68",
                    "body": "The point the movie is trying to make is that you matter to more people than just yourself. Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. That's what it's about, not about doing grand gestures. Even if you think you had no influence on others that's probably wrong because you at least have influence over your family.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7ctq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> Think about all the people you have influenced in your life in a positive way and think about how their life would've turned out without your influence. \n\nI did do exactly that the first time I watched *It's a Wonderful Life*. That's why it fills me with existential dread, because I realised that I can't possibly have positively impacted a lot of people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z485b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z5f6x",
                    "author": "WM-010",
                    "body": "I feel like another possible message in the film is that we don't truly know how much impact we have had on those around us.  George Bailey may be larger than life, but even he didn't really grasp how much of a positive impact he has had on others over the course of his life.  Whose to say that your estimation of your life is any better than George's of his?  There may be a lot more that you contributed to than you think there is.\n\nA phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z7qlf",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">A phrase which comes to mind is \"you don't know what you got, till it's gone\".\n\nI thought the message of the movie boils down to \"*it's not what you have, it's what you achieve*\"? Because Mr Potter is certainly richer and more powerful than George, but nobody is shown truly liking him, because he is a malevolent person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z5f6x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6ajz",
                    "author": "gakezfus",
                    "body": "I 100% agree with OP, and as much as I live this movie, I wouldn't show it to someone who was suicidal.\n\nSuppose that person calculated what the world would be without them, and found it better? It's not hard to imagine a person who made mistakes or did bad things in their life, and might actually have made the world worse.\n\nWhat happens when someone reaches such a conclusion? I would warn anyone suicidal to stay away from this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z6rbh",
                    "author": "GladAbbreviations337",
                    "body": ">Its message that *\"you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone\"* only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey\n\nYou're committing a fallacy of overgeneralization. The movie's intent isn't to claim that only those who possess George Bailey's traits leave a mark on the world. Rather, the message highlights the interconnectedness of human lives and the butterfly effect one's existence can have.\n\n>1\\. Saves lives\n\n>2\\. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n\n>3\\. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n\n>4\\. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nIs life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? By focusing only on grand gestures, you're creating a false dichotomy: either make grand contributions or none at all. Life's nuances are far richer than this.\n\n>Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No.\n\nYou're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\n\n>My family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nAn appeal to the economic fallacy, equating wealth with value. Life's worth isn't simply measured in material gains or losses.\n\n>How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\nYou've just made a hasty generalization. Your feelings are subjective. Many find the movie uplifting precisely because it illustrates the often unseen and unappreciated ripple effects of one's life.\n\n>Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them.\n\nAgain, you're overgeneralizing. The true takeaway isn't that one must meet all these criteria, but rather that each individual's actions, big or small, impact the world in ways they might never comprehend.\n\n>Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nThat's an appeal to tradition fallacy. Just because historically some individuals don't rise to heroic levels doesn't negate the potential within each person to effect change.\n\n>We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.\n\nNo one's arguing that every person will become a George Bailey. But isn't it worth considering that even minor contributions can profoundly affect the fabric of society? That each of us, in our own unique ways, changes the trajectory of others' lives simply by existing?\n\nWhy limit yourself to such a narrow perspective of the movie's message? Isn't it more intellectually stimulating to delve into the broader, more nuanced understanding of human impact and interconnectedness? Why cling to a bleak interpretation when there's a world of potential meaning awaiting deeper exploration?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z900x",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Is life's worth only measured in these major heroic acts? What about the small gestures? A kind word, a smile, or even simply being present? Aren't these also ways to influence and impact others? \n\nYes, but IRL, most people consider this insignificant and forgettable.\n\n>You're arguing from ignorance. Without the omnipotent perspective of the angel in the movie, you can't possibly comprehend the full impact of your existence on others.\r\n\nOK, but what if my existence has a neutral, or even negative effect on everyone else. What now? The movie would be uplifting if my life were a positive impact on everyone else, but I can't assume that it is. Hence the point of this post - most people go through life without achieving a noticeable positive effect on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z6rbh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z8u1z",
                    "author": "YouDecideWhoYouAre",
                    "body": "You don't need to change the world or town to get something out of the film. Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zbhxq",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Just knowing you had a positive impact on those around you can be enough. Chances are there are at least some people who are better off for you having been born unless you lived a very selfish existence, and even if thats the case you could argue the film is a call to do better.\n\nBut I don't. I've lived a very incompetent and unimpressive existence.\n\nI do try to improve myself, because I'm uncomfortable with the reality that I've failed to do anything to justify my existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z8u1z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1z9sss",
                    "author": "ItisyouwhosaythatIam",
                    "body": "\"No guarantee...\" True, but it's  the \"striving\" or just trying that counts. Time and again, he tries to do the right thing and reminds us of our interdependence. He becomes a bit of a \"warped frustrated young man.\" Until Clarence showa him the light. It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? I don't think I can live up to the great man my father was, but I'm so grateful to have had him and George Bailey as role models.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zc75r",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It's a great story that fights against all the ones making us cynical. Isn't that enough? \n\nI mean, my point isn't that we should stop trying. My point is that this movie fills me with existential dread because I have do not have any significant positive achievements to my name. I am trying to change the fact that I lack any significant positive achievements to my name, but don't hold your breath.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1z9sss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zag3l",
                    "author": "BOOMDIGGGER",
                    "body": "Sounds like a very bad optimistic movie. Life could also be better without him. Not gonna watch that",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zcze6",
                    "author": "Niccio36",
                    "body": "So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmm7",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">So just to be clear, you believe that you\u2019re a failure because you haven\u2019t fulfilled the four listed things?  And this film gives you anxiety because of that?\n\nI know that I'm a failure. Knowing that I've failed all 4 criteria makes me feel like even more of a failure. The question is why doesn't anyone else realise that most people fail one or more criteria.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zcze6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zdi2g",
                    "author": "Injuredmind",
                    "body": "The message of the movie is probably \u201clife is worth living cuz there is a chance that your actions may impact society in a big way\u201d . Thanks, gotta watch the movie now",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfmmq",
                    "author": "ReferenceMuch2193",
                    "body": "I also dislike the movie. It\u2019s a corny over simplistic view. It should be you matter and are valid because you are.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgev1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">It should be you matter and are valid because you are.\n\nWhy though? If we are to believe this, what's the value of hard work? \n\nThat's why I believe that hard work and achievement are necessary to make ourselves matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfmmq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zfses",
                    "author": "whistlepoo",
                    "body": "On the contrary, the reason the angel shows George the positive outcomes of his actions is because *George wasn't aware of them*. Likewise, you yourself may not be aware of the positive ripples your actions have made. The message to be taken is that you might being making other people's lives better without even realizing it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgw19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I thought the reason the angel was sent was because George was going to impulsively commit suicide, and the Christian God does not approve of suicide. Had George known, he wouldn't have tried to commit suicide, but not everyone has positive outcomes of their actions like George does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zfses"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zgpgo",
                    "author": "silverionmox",
                    "body": "Even if you were all of these things, it would still amount to god and the angels essentially holding other people hostage to force you to suffer through life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhtxh",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I mean, that is what Christianity preaches",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zgpgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zh5bp",
                    "author": "avamomrr",
                    "body": "Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. I used that line from the movie at my mother\u2019s funeral",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zhoh0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Remember, no one is a failure if he has friends\u2026. \n\nBut is it true IRL? Sure, you are your mother's child, but was her impact on the world that big?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zh5bp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zk0wx",
                    "author": "Rusty_Shacklefoord",
                    "body": "George Bailey didn\u2019t see the goodness in himself. That\u2019s the point. You\u2019re not seeing the goodness in yourself. It\u2019s there.\n\nNote: don\u2019t do what George did, because no angel is coming to reveal truths to save your life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zl0iy",
                    "author": "Konato-san",
                    "body": "The point here is that they were things George didn't stop to consider; he did things without thinking about them or their consequences several years down the line. Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer. Sure, if it were you as the movie's protagonist, it'd be something different, but something would've happened nonetheless.\n\nYou didn't mention friends. Do you have friends? Maybe you gave them advice someday and it changed one of their future actions for the better. Maybe you're actually friends with someone who'd otherwise have none? Maybe there was a time where you tripped onto the sidewalk, that distracted someone and if it hadn't happened, they'd have crossed the street and gotten themselves ran over.\n\nOr maybe you wrote a post on CMV about a movie giving you existential dread and a person who'd never ever heard of the movie before read the post, disagreed with your conclusions and even realized 'damn, I *am* useful'.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm6op",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Anybody would save a drowning person if they had the chance to, no? It's a no-brainer.\n\nI'm too chicken to put myself in that situation. Surely, I'm not the only one?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zl0iy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zlygi",
                    "author": "effekt333",
                    "body": "This film is a wake up call but it is heartwarming when you put yourself in George\u2019s shoes. Sure, he may not have had the perfect life but this film has one of the most human endings I\u2019ve seen ever. Seeing all of the people who know him as a good man, and the people he has helped come and give him money, it is just one of the most emotional scenes, that proves his wealth wasn\u2019t in money, but in the lives he helped change, and his generosity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zm864",
                    "author": "Littlepage3130",
                    "body": "Imo the whole bit where his wife never married because he was never born seemed unrealistic. She was a dish and the more likely scenario is that she either dates/marries a series of men who mistreat her until she's an old woman with little to show for it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmu58",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "It's 1946, that's probably what happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zm864"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zmt7x",
                    "author": "Pastrythief",
                    "body": "There is something that you connect with within this mythology bc it illicits \u201cexistential dread\u201d. You\u2019re conveniently pointing towards a movie and a plot of fictitious characters that it\u2019s doing something TO you. What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? This is what movies do. They connect us to the larger mythologies of our own lives. The things we uniquely deal with, and how to handle the human experience. This film \u201cscares\u201d you which means there\u2019s opportunities to understand yourself more, versus pointing and saying \u201cbad\u201d or \u201cI can\u2019t relate\u201d. I triple highly suggest \u201cpower of myth\u201d by Joseph Campbell.\n\nAlso, movies like \u201cMatrix\u201d, \u201cInterstellar\u201d, \u201c12 monkeys\u201d, etc\u2026 are movies that could cause dread for some people, but not for you\u2026\n\nLook at the sign and connect instead of deny. There\u2019s a message in the symbols for you.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn84j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> The question is what is it doing FOR you? What it\u2019s doing is connecting and reflecting what\u2019s inside of you. What does it bring up? \n\nIt brings up the fact that due to my failures, nobody has benefited from my 27 years of existence.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zmt7x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zn6dk",
                    "author": "Troncross",
                    "body": "*gives hug*\n\nNo seriously, that's my argument. I teared up reading your post and I feel like a hug would change your mind.\n\nYou are valuable and the world is better with you existing. Not because of what you've done, not because of who you've helped, not because of big things you did or didn't do. You are enough just by being you. It doesn't matter if people would replace you in some alternate timeline, you exist in this timeline and that makes it the best one!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zo2pt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You are enough just by being you.\n\nWhy would you say this? I wouldn't say this to anyone, because I think it diminishes the value of hard work and ambition.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zn6dk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zofs7",
                    "author": "xeroxchick",
                    "body": "I can guess your age.  Watching something and you can only see yourself.  No shade here, I used to teach high school and noticed a big change in how students reacted to someone else\u2019s accomplishment - with sadness or frustration because it made them \u201cfeel bad.\u201d  I\u2019m honestly still flummoxed by this.  It\u2019s not about you and that should free your mind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zpl7e",
                    "author": "ChunkyDipAss64",
                    "body": "I think you're doing everything the movie tells you not to : the premise of the movie is this guy was a good person he did save people's lives and help out the world but why :because he was a good person. i know you don't think you would being in a situation like that but would you want someone to die? no. would you kill someone? no. that's not the criteria of being human but like it speaks a lot you say you're corruptible but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not  \ni know people think most of this world is full of greed and yeah some people actually are like that but you don't give yourself enough credit most of the people living breathing normal people are good they're kind and they have a heart they can empathise you saying all this just proves you're one of them because you're questioning if you could ever be that way   \nbasically if you try to be a good kind human you will be one and if you commit suicide that will definitely be a loss to the world yes we all have our struggles but we do bring joy to some other people and you have sm life ahead of you   \nyou don't have a wife and kids yet but someday you can and try your best to become a worthy husband and father its the effort and intent that really matters be a good person and the world losing you would be a really sad thing",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zqse2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">but ask yourself this would you take someone's life for a billion dollars? I'm pretty sure you'd not\n\nIf I was guaranteed to face no repercussions or punishment I probably would.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zpl7e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zt38z",
                    "author": "Satan_and_Communism",
                    "body": "You\u2019re literally doing the George Bailey thing saying my life didn\u2019t contribute meaningfully when it has. \n\nI don\u2019t have time to create a world where you were never born to show you but the point of the movie is stop doing that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zu1uo",
                    "author": "MercurialMagician",
                    "body": "OP, you are the EXACT target of the message! You feel like a failure. You feel like you haven't accomplished your dreams. You think if you were never born the world would be a better place JUST LIKE GEORGE DID!!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zugnl",
                    "author": "Patricio_Guapo",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t view it that way at all. \n\nGeorge is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first. \n\nI watch it every single Christmas time and I think it\u2019s one of the funniest movies I\u2019ve ever seen. \n\nWhen Uncle Billy loses the money and George starts losing it, he uncorks lines like \"You call this a happy family? Why do we have to have all these kids?\u201d and \"Where's that money, you silly, stupid old fool?!\u201d I absolutely lose it.\n\nAnd then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nStewart\u2019s performance is perfect.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yysbo",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "> George is just an ordinary dude who does nothing particularly heroic, but makes choices in his life to do the next right thing because he cares about others and puts their needs first.\n\nExactly, George chose a path in life where merely living his life brings benefit to the world, without him having to go out of his way to do so. The same can't be said for most people, including myself.\n\n> And then when Clarence grants him his wish of never being born and he sees the consequences of that, he starts spinning out of control, slowly at first and then faster and faster until it hits him - life has meaning and richness and depth and is filled with love and joy and hope if we only open our eyes to how we impact those around us.\n\nI have put thought into how much I impacted others. And after putting thought into this, I realised that my impact is insignificant, if not outright negative.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zugnl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zx66l",
                    "author": "feltsandwich",
                    "body": "Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain?\n\nI think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" \n\nYou clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nWill you watch a Superman movie and wring your hands over your own weakness and impotence? \"None of us will ever be super! I can't bear to watch my own weaknesses laid bare to me by a movie.\"\n\nYou  present two options: Hero vs \"cowardly, insignificant, incompetent and corruptible.\" You've established a black and white view, ironically. You're either George Bailey, or you're a worm. \n\nEveryone lives on a continuum; everyone has different challenges, strengths and opportunities. Everyone rises or falls in a different way to different occasions. Sooner or later, everyone falls short somehow. \n\nGeorge Bailey was simply given something you will never have: the awareness to undo his mistakes after the fact. The movie is about his **journey**, not precisely his heroism.\n\nWe're over analyzing a work of fiction, a work of entertainment, because of the way it makes you feel personally. That's part of one's reaction to art, but you seem to be missing the big picture.\n\nYour personal view is something you project onto \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" Your personal view is not a quality of the film itself.\n\nLife is far larger and more complex than an old black and white movie. This movie asks you  to think, and not to do something or be something.\n\nIn ten years you'll look back at this thread and laugh.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yza46",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Would you be shocked to discover that plastic toys have feelings and experience pain? I think the existential dread in that case exceeds \"It's A Wonderful Life.\" You clearly discerned the message of \"It's A Wonderful Life,\" but were left with the deflating idea that neither you nor anyone else will ever measure up...to a fictional character.\n\nI lack empathy, so I won't care about those toys. But what I do have is self-centredness, which is why I find it so painful to realise that, in contrast to George Bailey, people wouldn't miss me if I'm gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zx66l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxxg6",
                    "author": "SeanFromQueens",
                    "body": "It's actually an indictment of today's economy, and where the nightmare scenario is that there's a local tyrant that domineers the town. In today's economy that nightmare scenario where one could yell at the local tyrant for their choices (or at least leave a burning bag of dog poop on porch), but with the commoditification of every aspect of the economy and globalization that pushes economic activity to least expensive and most profitable locations across the profit the tyrants of the world are abstractions and phantoms to individuals living in the towns of the harmed by their decisions. Hell even lost alternative ending skit on [Saturday Night Live](https://youtu.be/vw89o0afb2A?si=TPOMqE1hHNPTcKEy) with the town people becoming a lynch mob to kill Mr. Potter isn't available to the people who have McKinsey or Bain Capital to blame for their former employer off-shoring all the jobs that used to provide for their hometown for generations.\n \nThe current reality that is far worse than the worst situation that could be dreamt up in 1946, with a lesser rate of suicide than modern day America, is what drove George Bailey to suicide ideation.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzgn6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k1zxxg6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zxzu9",
                    "author": "AbortRTLS",
                    "body": "I tend to think that you, like George, are struggling to see the ways you\u2019ve contributed to the world. George doesn\u2019t see himself as important because he hasn\u2019t met his criteria for important, namely being a great architect or world traveler. He discounts the good he has done because he is blind to their impact.\n\nThe movie makes the good actions he has done really obvious for narrative purposes: easier to demonstrate to people the cause-effect relationship of something huge like saving a life or stopping a poisoning. The real life equivalent is more subtle and nuanced. I submit to you a quote from the (American Journal of Psychiatry)[https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.5.720] \u201cA number of people walked by him, oblivious to his anguish, unaware of his life-and-death struggle. Mr. Hines told us that \u201cIf someone had smiled and said, \u2018Are you okay?\u2019 I know I would have begged them to help me. I would have told them everything and asked for help. I would not have jumped. I just was unable to ask for help myself.\u201d In fact, a foreign tourist did stop and talk with Mr. Hines. She asked him to take her picture, which he did. As she walked away, he felt more than ever that \u201cNobody really cares.\u201d He jumped. On the way down, he changed his mind. He remembered thinking, \u201cI want to live. Why am I doing this?\u201d It was too late. Severely injured, Mr. Hines was kept afloat by a sea lion until rescuers arrived.\u201d Small actions can have big impacts, but that is harder to convey on film. We may not think of our actions as meaningful, but to others they usually are. This is the point that the movie is trying to make, that the impact we have on the world is largely imperceptible to us, be it giving a smile to a stranger we don\u2019t know deeply needs it, or holding a door to someone who we didn\u2019t know just lost someone and is struggling with the weight of the world. Our actions have consequences, and the small positive gestures we put into the world make our lives meaningful to those around us even if we can\u2019t see it. Even if life doesn\u2019t go according to plan, that doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s a waste.\n\nAnother thing to consider, if you truly feel you don\u2019t contribute positively to the world, the best time to start is now! Just small things, a friendly smile, pick up a bit of trash on a walk, reach out to a friend you haven\u2019t spoken to in a while and tell them what they mean to you! When presented with information that makes us uncomfortable we have a choice, to dwell there and allow that feeling to consume us, or to understand the source of discomfort and take action to resolve it. Even if it is just 1 good deed a day without the expectation of compensation, that is how you become a George Bailey. What\u2019s more, when you live like that it has positive consequences! I feel good about myself when I do something small but positive for the sake of it, and what goes around truly does come around! I had an \u201cIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life\u201d moment 2 days ago, I was talking to a friend and colleague after the program I was working on at work was cancelled, forcing me to look for work. I felt like a failure, not just for that program being lost but for the troubles I am having in getting a new job. My friend assured me that the feedback she had heard about me around the office is positive, and that she knows people enjoy having me in their lives: it didn\u2019t solve my immediate problems, but it helped pick me up immensely, help me not be so down on myself. Not only is she a fantastic friend, but I can also claim that that is a result of putting good vibes out into the world: people care about you, they want to see you do well!\n\nI am 99.99% sure you are a fine person, no more good or evil than most everyone else: your life has meaning! Now get out there and continue to make a positive impact!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zy6pj",
                    "author": "Bayley78",
                    "body": "His dad is the man who created the company. He feels constantly less than his father. George is unmarried and alone for far longer than most young men in the 1950\u2019s. His brother is a war hero and friend is a millionaire while he\u2019s stuck in the same small town. \n\nHis mother and friends suffer without him, his coworkers suffer without him, and any of his friends needed him in their lives even if they didn\u2019t say it before his wish. The moral is that you are loved and that as long as you have a good heart you are making a difference even if cannot see it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k1zzava",
                    "author": "ProfessorHeronarty",
                    "body": "I've got nothing to add except of what has already been said - except that this is one of the best threads in this sub. That goes for the question in itself, how OP described his feelings, his genuine interest in the answers and of course the answers in itself. Well done, folks!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k200r3d",
                    "author": "dailycnn",
                    "body": "Consider.. \n\nDo you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nDo you work to offer more than you consume?\n\nAnd your self-awareness shared in this post is itself a value to myself and society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3yzj51",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Do you have a positive impact to those around you?\n\nNo I don't.\n\n>Do you work to offer more than you consume?\r\n\nI try, but I often fail miserably.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k200r3d"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k201wft",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "The whole point of the movie is that when it came out, it was critically and popularly panned. \n\nThe only reason it\u2019s played is because in the 1950-60\u2019s, nascent local TV stations wanted something to play during Christmas, but couldn\u2019t afford more popular movies.  \nIt\u2019s a Wonderful Life, because of its failure, was an easy movie to buy the rights to. \n\nThe same thing happens with A Christmas Story.  \nNot well received when it came out, but TBS needed something cheap to play during Christmas.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20348b",
                    "author": "Vulpix-Rawr",
                    "body": "You might not mean much to the world, but you mean the world to someone else. \n\nI think you underestimate the impact you have on your friends and the people around you. Yeah, you may not be saving a town, but (assuming you're not a selfish prick) you probably have helped your friends and family more than your realize, be it monetary or emotional support. \n\nThe movie is more like the butterfly effect where George's small acts ended up accumulating to something great.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203ca8",
                    "author": "asktheages1979",
                    "body": "It's been a while since I watched it but from what I recall, George wasn't even that good of a spouse and parent - I recall him being unwarrantedly aggressive to his wife and kids because he didn't appreciate his wife enough and was a miserable sob. He needed the angel to set him straight and recognize the value of what he had. \n\nI think it's a great film but I don't really think of George Bailey as a heroic good guy - it's closer to a Scrooge-like redemption story for me.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k203de6",
                    "author": "Walleye_man26",
                    "body": "OP I think you are selling yourself short a bit and putting too much weight on yourself. Are you a decent enough person? Do you try to show a basic level of kindness to others? If so, then you probably have made more of an impact than you realize. Let me give an example. \n\nWhen I was in college on the first day of move in, I was talking to another guy on my floor. He was nice enough and we chatted a bit. The next day I was in my dorm trying to set everything up. He knocked on my door and said he was going to explore campus a bit and if I wanted to come. I said yes and while we were walking around a bunch of girls were playing volleyball and asked us to come over and play with them. I started talking to a girl playing volleyball, we started hanging out, and we started dating. We got married last year. \n\nMy wife and I never had any classes together and weren\u2019t in any clubs together. Had it not been for that one day, we never would have met. Had the guy on my floor in the dorms not asked me to hang out, I never would have met my wife. It\u2019s these minor, small things that really matter. Maybe somebody that you went on a date with once would have been hanging out with somebody else during that time and been killed in a car crash. There\u2019s no way to tell what May or may not have happened. \n\nMy point is that there are hundreds of things we do that seem minor and unimportant at the time that end up having HUGE consequences. Inviting somebody to walk around? Sending a message to a friend in need? Just being nice to someone who had a bad day? These may seem irrelevant but actually matter a lot. \n\nI teach, and a lot of things that I do that are not specific to teaching curriculum (talking to kids at lunch, trying to have a positive attitude, etc) seem to really matter a lot. Quite a few kids have told me things like \u201cI had a rough home life, but I enjoyed coming to your class because you were kind and funny, and that really meant a lot. Thank you.\u201d Simple acts of kindness really go a loooong way. \n\nSo if you ever feel like you don\u2019t matter, remember that basic acts of kindness ALWAYS matter. Even if you never think about it, you probably have made a difference to somebody by just being kind.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2048l8",
                    "author": "coentertainer",
                    "body": "IAWL is one of the most philosophically rich Hollywood films ever made, and the massive impact George is shown to have made (exaggerated for effect) is just one takeaway. \n\nYes, few of us are as nobel or virtuous as the hero of a golden age Hollywood movie, but we can still learn that a simple shabby life riddled with imperfections, has immense value and should not be judged against the glamour of fame, material wealth, or other flights of fancy.\n\nYou and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nMy main takeaway from the film isn't that if I was never born my peers would be living in a dystopia, but rather that life (as the Buddhists say) is suffering, and one should accept its imperfections (a wabi sabi approach).\n\nI believe this is the point Capra et al are trying to make, and the over the top characterization of George Bailey is just a fantastical way of making it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t9xb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You and I will never be shown the hole we'd leave behind (however small that hole may be) but we could still stand to appreciate more that which we do have. George is given this opportunity after letting his shortcomings get the better of him.\n\nSure, we can appreciate what we have. But that doesn't change the fact that I have failed to give others reason to appreciate me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2048l8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204h36",
                    "author": "OreadaholicO",
                    "body": "1. Why is your friend watching this movie in September? \n2. Time removes the large hole anyone makes so, zoom out.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t4rj",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Why is your friend watching this movie in September?\n\nHe binge-watched the Big Bang Theory, and got interested in watching It's a Wonderful Life because of a Big Bang Theory episode that was heavily influenced by this movie.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k204h36"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204lqs",
                    "author": "Dachannien",
                    "body": "Remember that George's value to the people around him wasn't apparent to him until he had an angel intervene in his suicide attempt. Part of the message of this film is that you are valued and important, even if you don't realize it. If you watch this film and then expect to arrive at the same place George did through introspection alone, you have missed the point - it didn't work for George, so why would it work for you? \n\nIn the real world, we don't have guardian angels, but we do have therapists and crisis intervention specialists. Please consider looking into therapy as an option for getting a better perspective on your self-worth.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k204xn3",
                    "author": "Brave-Service-8430",
                    "body": "\\> How is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie?\n\n&#x200B;\n\nuhhh because its a fucking MOVIE. let it go, man. it doesnt matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2069tt",
                    "author": "Agree-Refuse-69",
                    "body": "lol reality hurts OP\n\nthose who can accept it become succesful\n\nthose who can't, become....you \n\nlmao",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k207szy",
                    "author": "Technicalhotdog",
                    "body": "George didn't realize how much he meant to the people in his life and the community until it was shown to him. Generally we don't know how our absence would affect things, but the point is if you're a good person and you try to do the right thing, you're probably having positive effects on the people in your life that you're totally unaware of",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k208v1o",
                    "author": "DMvsPC",
                    "body": "I feel the message is that the small things you do can ripple out to big changes.  The words of thanks you give to someone on the edge, the smile you give being the thing that keeps the pills out of someone's mouth that day, the chat you have standing in line that leads to a relationship etc.  We can't see them before they happen, and often don't know the effect until we've had it, but by removing yourself you've denied any future positive effect your life can have, known or unknown.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20alxd",
                    "author": "NaughtyT-rex",
                    "body": "I hated this movie",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z02q8",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but why?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20alxd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20dygw",
                    "author": "iiioiia",
                    "body": "> I am none of those things.\n\nNo offense homie but you don't have a clue what you are now, let alone in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fhdg",
                    "author": "StrengthToBreak",
                    "body": "1) Stop comparing yourself to movie characters.  That's an allegory, not a yardstick.\n\n2) Even George Bailey is irrelevant at the cosmic scale.   You're just going to need to find a way to find meaning for your life, the same as everyone else does.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20fvzl",
                    "author": "FloppyDickFingers",
                    "body": "Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need:\nTherapy to view yourself more kindly \nOr\nIf you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you. \n\nAll your post says is \u2018I don\u2019t like myself and I don\u2019t want to be reminded of it\u2019 \n\nAnd that\u2019s either depression or a wake up call. If it is the latter, then that\u2019s art at its best.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z08t0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Honestly if you don\u2019t feel you contribute anything then you either need: Therapy to view yourself more kindly Or If you are being accurate, to change your life right the fuck now. Take pride in your work. Be kind to those around you.\n\n* Why should I be kind to myself when I don't deserve kindness? \n* What pride can I possibly take in my work [if it's all failures](https://www.reddit.com/r/PhD/comments/1511dwv/one_of_my_friends_might_be_on_the_same_track_of/)? \n* I at least fake kindness to others, because when you're the bottom dregs of society, you are obligated to treat everyone else as a superior.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20fvzl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20heoe",
                    "author": "dankeykang4200",
                    "body": "Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z0iiy",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Think about it like this, if nothing you do matters, then you can do anything.   Being important is so much responsibility.    If I knew for a fact that everything would go to shit without me, I'd be stressed out all the time.    The thought that nothing matters is comforting to me.   It gives me a sense of freedom that I wouldn't have if I was needed in the way George is.\n\nIt is a frightening thought to me. Because if I have no responsibility, no impact and no importance, what point is there in my existence? \n\nIf I am to just accept a life of zero responsibility, the world would have been better off if I was just a miscarriage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20heoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20krqu",
                    "author": "CerousRhinocerous",
                    "body": "Oh my dear. You matter, and just because you aren\u2019t doing grand gestures doesn\u2019t mean that the small acts of kindness and courtesy you do don\u2019t help people, and ripple outward. The mere act of acknowledging someone when you pass them on the street, or picking up something that someone has dropped, or remarking with pleasure on someone\u2019s artistry or cooking or hairstyle can help people feel seen and appreciated, and does more than you realize. \n\nI can\u2019t stand that movie myself because it is so heavy handed and \u2018savior-complexy\u2019\n\nYou don\u2019t have to be like George to make a difference in the world. Just be you, work to know yourself, and do what you can. The thing you said about not having kids - if you really think you\u2019d be likely to be abusive\u2026maybe that\u2019s a grand good thing you\u2019re doing right there. Although I\u2019ve found that having that kind of insight about that possibility gives me a pretty good feeling that you might have better self-control than you realize. You matter.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20lyy5",
                    "author": "StarsEatMyCrown",
                    "body": "I have been sitting here counting on my head the amount of random no-names that have made a huge impact on my life for random words or encounters that I've had with them in my life. They might be somewhere right now feeling at if they haven't made an impact and here I am, proof that they have, and they will never know.\n\nWhat you say matters. The micro-interactions you have matter. Even if your walk past someone and you simply say hello, how do you not know that the hello meant everything to them in that moment? \n\nThe way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nImagine this... you're walking down an aisle at a store to buy oatmeal. You're wearing a pair of brown shoes. You go home. You cook your oatmeal. You think your life means nothing with your drab oatmeal and your brown shoes. \n\nBut let's say that a lady was walking by and your shoes reminded her of her dad's shoes, and her dad passed away. She texts her sister about it, and how she's feeling fondly of memories about her dad today. Her sister texts her back a quick inside joke that her dad used to say about the shoes. She laughs and steps backward in the store, and bumps into a handsome guy. They talk and joke... blah blah, they end up married. All because your shoes reminded her of her dad. This is how like works. We're all having micro-impacts on everyone all day long. You're not in a bubble. You're not an island. You are here and you matter. \n\nYou matter whether or not we change your view or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z132q",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The way people treat each other whether negatively or positively matters. You never know just how much someone will take what you do or say to heart.\n\nExactly, what if my actions are even worse than they appear, and have indirectly led to accidents, suicides or murders?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20lyy5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20uwbm",
                    "author": "postcoffeepoop420",
                    "body": "Damn. How do you have any will to keep on keeping on everyday with a mentality like this?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4ec0",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I don't. I keep pushing myself along through being harsh on myself. Sure, it's depressing, but it forces me to keep trying to work hard and improve myself even when I don't want to try anymore.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20uwbm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k20ys7r",
                    "author": "CieloBlueStars",
                    "body": "Yeah I re-watched it a couple years back and it had already aged like milk in many ways. There were some interesting points, but I ended up turning it off and couldn\u2019t finish it as I couldn\u2019t get over the racism depicted.\n\nOh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4j65",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Oh well, there are other good movies out there for good holiday season vibes!\n\nTo me, *It's a Wonderful Life* is not a movie for good holiday season vibes at all. I see it as, at best, a movie that provokes self-reflection, and at worst, a source of existential dread.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k20ys7r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217b0n",
                    "author": "SpezJailbaitMod",
                    "body": "Brutal interpretation but I like it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k217nbd",
                    "author": "judo_panda",
                    "body": "Yeah I think the point of the movie is is that you *don't know* what effect you would have on other people, based on your own perspective of your own life. Seeing it from the outside makes it easier to understand exactly how the little things you do might have huge impact on other people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21pwxc",
                    "author": "Certain-Definition51",
                    "body": "Also! The end is that one man who has done so much good, finally wearing out and breaking - \n\nAnd he is saved by all the normal people who chip in to help. \n\nIt\u2019s the actions of the community that pitch in to save the community. George is the center of the story, but he\u2019s just one member of what is, by and large, and community of good people who look out for their own. He\u2019s not the hero in that he is the lone bulwark against the dark - he\u2019s the hero in that he is the one the camera is focusing on. \n\nBut really he\u2019s just a part of a community of people just as kind and generous as he is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21q5rh",
                    "author": "garry4321",
                    "body": "What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. What matters is that you\u2019re here now and can decide to do good things. Comparing to a hypothetical universe makes no sense.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4p2p",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">What does it matter if the world isn\u2019t insanely better than it would be without you. \n\nOK, but what if it's worse due to my existence?",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k21q5rh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21w82o",
                    "author": "CarCrashRhetoric",
                    "body": "*It\u2019s A Wonderful Life* helped save my life at a time when I didn\u2019t want to be alive, so I can\u2019t agree. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s about how extraordinarily good George was. He was a normal person who made small choices to make other people\u2019s lives better. Harry was The Hero\u2122\ufe0f. It\u2019s that even if it\u2019s in ways we don\u2019t realize, we effect other people\u2019s lives. \n\nAt the time, I thought I would make people\u2019s lives better by not existing. But it made me take a step back and realize that I would be making the world worse for people I care about by taking myself out of it. And I didn\u2019t and don\u2019t want that. \n\nI will admit I\u2019m biased, though. It\u2019s my favorite film of all time. I watch it when I need my faith in humanity restored.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k21xg6z",
                    "author": "sdvneuro",
                    "body": "I hate the movie. He never gets to follow his dreams. Yeah, he still has a good life, but not the one he dreamt of. He gave it all up. It\u2019s depressing. \n\nAnd the movie was a flop. The only reason we see it so much is because it was free for networks to air because it did so badly that they didn\u2019t renew copyright (or however that works) and let it enter public domain earlier than better movies.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k221w8q",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": "The movie isn't about you. \n\nOk. But if you want to make it about you, let's make it apples to apples.\n\nYou really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nI can think of a hundred movies to be in that would be way more terrifying and depressing than It's A Wonderful Life.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z4x89",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">You really think an angel showing you your life (IaWL) didn't make any positive effect on other people would be more terrifying than travelling on a spaceship to Hell and being tormented by demons making you want to tear your eyeballs out (Event Horizon)?\n\nYes, because I think dying a gruesome death is less frightening than the knowledge that my existence has been of no benefit to others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k221w8q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k223pp1",
                    "author": "prettyxxreckless",
                    "body": "This is so interesting to me, because I have the exact opposite reaction to that movie.\n\nI am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026 \n\nMaybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life. \n\nYou can believe \u201cit\u2019s a life\u201d without specialness or importance. That\u2019s fair and accurate and your life will continue to be that way\u2026 Or you can do something about it. You can love, you can risk things, you can talk to people, you can go outside your comfort zone\u2026 To live a WONDERFUL life full of love that you curate and foster each day through small gestures is the most ordinary thing to do, but it\u2019s also the most beautiful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z5bvd",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I am a very existential and depressed person in general. But that film fills me with warm, fuzzy feelings. Maybe it\u2019s because I saw it on my very first date with the first love of my life. The film evokes romance for me\u2026 We crammed ourselves into the first row at the local cinema and strained our necks to watch the film. We talked the entire way though it, laughing quietly at jokes. George Bailey reminded me of my date. Totally full of dreams and ambitions but not enough sense to know when to kiss a girl\u2026  \n>  \n>Maybe it\u2019s lame and simple but that film always felt like a love story to me. George might not be a war hero but he was the love of Mary\u2019s life, even though he wasn\u2019t anything special in particular\u2026 I am no longer dating that guy, and he\u2019s with someone else. He lives a pretty simple life now and so do I. But the love that I felt was so big and warm, I don\u2019t even think he knows how much he touched and changed my life.\r  \n\r\n\nI'm 27 and never had a girlfriend. Maybe that's for the best (because I might become an abuser), but it also means that everything here is an alien concept to me. \n\nNever having a girlfriend means that I've never been able to positively affect an SO's life, but also means that I've never been able to negatively affect an SO's life either.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k223pp1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2274v4",
                    "author": "UnableLocal2918",
                    "body": "The point was that you do not know how many lives you touch or how many lives are then touched.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k227ais",
                    "author": "IfYouOnlyKnew22",
                    "body": "Sounds like you just completely missed the point of the whole movie. \n\nIt\u2019s really not that deep, the plot kind of speaks for itself. It shows the impact that even the ordinary people have on the various relationships throughout their lives and the holes that are left if they hadn\u2019t been there to change the course of others\u2019 lives",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22myzt",
                    "author": "Temporary-Exchange28",
                    "body": "Repeat to yourself, \u201cThis is just a film; I should really just relax.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2349q3",
                    "author": "khantroll1",
                    "body": "I\u2026think you underestimate your impact a bit. Or not, I don\u2019t know you. But I\u2019m nothing special. I\u2019m actually a failure in some ways because I went from being on the cusp of really great things to getting by. That being said, I\u2019ve: \n\nSaved a few friends\u2019 lives\nProlonged my mother\u2019s life. \nBeen fairly decent friend and husband. \nWorked for a vocational school that helped people turn their lives around\nHelped teach green energy principles. \n\nAll while just\u2026living. \n\nWe touch people in a thousand different ways every single day",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2357ng",
                    "author": "Operatesinreality",
                    "body": "Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z63k4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Non of us really matter and so what? Why do you want to leave some big hole? It's silly. Humans are so narcissistic.\n\nOf course I want to have a huge impact so that this need for external praise is fulfilled. Narcissism is borne out of a parasitic need for external praise, and like a parasite, it will harm you if you have nothing to feed it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2357ng"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k236j65",
                    "author": "DeanoBambino90",
                    "body": "Try a little self-improvement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53t0qz",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I'm constantly trying self-improvement. It's just that despite constantly trying, I'm constantly failing. At the end of the day, if failures are all there is to you, nobody is going to miss you when you're gone.",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k236j65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23bxrz",
                    "author": "DrakenKor",
                    "body": "\"If a single particle were to go missing from the Universe, it would all collapse in on itself\"  \nAnd  \n\"You are more essential than you realise\"  \n\n\nBoth quotes I'd like to say to you OP",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23cnsv",
                    "author": "Bent_Man_",
                    "body": "> Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? No. \n\nWhen I was in High School I was in an A Christmas Carol play. One scene that struck me was when Scrooge sees the future, and a married couple celebrates that he's dead because it means they're out of his debt. Scrooge is horrified. Not only would he not leave behind a large hole, but the world is better off without him.\n\nI have no idea if this was in the original or just the edition we did.\n\nPoint is though, if you think you'd be abusive if you had a wife, and that the world wouldn't care if you died, maybe you should take a page from Scrooge and become the kind of person the world would miss.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23gw9s",
                    "author": "SynAck301",
                    "body": "No, you\u2019re right. The US housing situation is pretty much a Pottersville scenario. And immigrants are still considered questionable. And sexually confident women are still vilified. And millions of Americans sacrifice their dreams to feed their families every day. But we\u2019re not going wake up and find it was all a dream unfortunately.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6bbt",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "Your comment doesn't change my view. All it shows is that our economic reality has doomed the majority of the population to poverty and insignificance.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23gw9s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23kafv",
                    "author": "Treeslooklikepeople",
                    "body": "You mightve helped people without realizing just by saying something nice or becoming their friend. Plus it is never too late to pick up new things in your life that make it feel more meaningful.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ltay",
                    "author": "Houseofducks224",
                    "body": "This is one of my favorite movies.\n\nI like the Potter being the name of the bad guy.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2411i6",
                    "author": "Filip889",
                    "body": "Sometimes you leave a hole exactly where you don t expect. Who knows maybe you did save a life at some point and don t even know it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249ymh",
                    "author": "DrunkenCodeMonkey",
                    "body": "Ive saved a life or two, in passing.\n\nThe best example i have is something i didn't know about until after the fact:\n\nOnce, on a school trip, i was told that one of my friends was unconscious.\n\nI vaguely remembered him telling me about blood sugar levels when i asked him why he had \"get out of gym\" notes.\n\nI told people. Nobody reacted (theyvwere",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24hr7m",
                    "author": "Rima996",
                    "body": "I felt that way after watching Tuck Everlasting",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k24kkby",
                    "author": "Vienta1988",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think you have to be as heroic as George Bailey to be valued by the people who love you, and to leave a hole in the lives of your loved ones if you die.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250blx",
                    "author": "unonameless",
                    "body": "Wanna get an even worse existential crisis? \n\nNone of it matters in the long run. How many people you save, how well your town is, how happy your family is. 200 years in the future, all those people you saved will be gone and long forgotten. Their graves will be untended rocks, if they are still standing. Your town will boom or vanish based on some global economic whims, but even that doesn't matter. 2000 years in the future, even the memory of everything you hold important in life will vanish forever. \n\nNothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6on5",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Nothing you will ever do or feel or experience exists in any meaningful way beyond the moment when it happens.\n\nExactly, which is why I try to maximise my positive impact so that my legacy will last as long as possible, even though it certainly won't be forever. Unfortunately, I constantly fail at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250blx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k250skg",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "Does It matter in the long run? If you're not a historical figure but a wheel in the cobweb, chances are, your existence impact isn't anything worthwhile and that's a fact for billions.\n\nAnd that is OK. You give meaning and worth to your life. Whether you live the life of a Saint or a sinner doesn't matter to others, it matters to you.\n\nHaving awareness over your own life's meaning is a great start to be happy or at least content with it.\n\nI think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center. \n\nI'm proud of what I have achieved giving my starting point of a gay autistic kid raised in poverty and a harsh environment and that is what matters to me.\n\nFind your own answer to that question and live by it or don't.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6u19",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">I think, when I die, I left my mark on many lives as a match maker in the job center.\n\nMy goal in life is to achieve big enough positive deeds that people praise me, and that this praise continues after I'm gone. Unfortunately, I am not succeeding at this goal.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k250skg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k253c96",
                    "author": "lateralmoves",
                    "body": "I have watched this movie every Christmas eve since I was born and it gets worse every year. George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. This is one bad event after another befalling this guy so why wouldn't he be a jerk. There isn't one person in this movie I root for. I wish they'd all jump off the bridge.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k3z6yh4",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">George Bailey is an an absolute asshole surrounded by more assholes. \n\nHow? The only real asshole in this movie is Mr Potter.\n\n>The idea that you can be that awful to people and still be the \"hero\" of the movie is amazing. \n\nLook at politics. Successful politicians are able to make themselves a hero to their supporters even despite being awful to people.",
                    "date": "2023-10-08",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k253c96"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259zk9",
                    "author": "UseYourIndoorVoice",
                    "body": "I always understood the message to be that we never know how much of an impact we have on the lives of others.  That even small acts can change lives.  Helping someone to make an appointment.  Or hanging out with a lonely friend who otherwise might have taken their life.  We don't know, and usually can't know, the effect we have on the world.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k262oib",
                    "author": "indifferentunicorn",
                    "body": "Every time a bell rings an angel gets their wings is indeed uplifting for people who think it\u2019s just dandy to shuffle off this mortal coil and live out eternity in paradise.  To those wishing that to be true, the phrase \u2018everytime a bell rings someone dies\u2019 is just as pleasantly satisfying.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27eblh",
                    "author": "CrungoMcDungus",
                    "body": "Two things regarding saving his brother\u2019s life and the way that you don\u2019t see yourself ever doing that.\n\n1. Have you ever even been in a scenario where the life of someone you loved deeply was in danger? If not, you would be surprised at how your brain and body react. Adrenaline is one hell of a drug.\n2. George was a kid when he saved Sam\u2019s life. A kid is not going to go through the same \u201cwhat if I die in my attempt to save him\u201d consideration that an adult like yourself will.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28i4qv",
                    "author": "Awkward_Algae1684",
                    "body": ">I am none of these things.\n\nAs far as you know. \n\nDown here in this bizarre world we often never see the true impact of the events we set in motion, or how they reverberate throughout the universe. \n\nHere\u2019s a movie for you, The Butterfly Effect. Ashton Kutcher goes to various focal points in his life, and decides to do one or two things differently, and it *radically* changed the entire timeline of events. \n\nEven if you think you may have never done anything worthwhile like save someone\u2019s life, that doesn\u2019t mean you haven\u2019t. It definitely doesn\u2019t mean you couldn\u2019t. Sometimes one small act, that you very well might even just shrug and forget about, could radically alter the course of events for someone else.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2aik80",
                    "author": "No-Natural-783",
                    "body": "Yeah pop culture gaslighting at its finest. Clarence is an existential terrorist.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gub90",
                    "author": "Old_Case5471",
                    "body": "So the issue it seems to me the  issue that you have with the movie is that you aren't as good a person as George. Maybe you should be a better person and the movie would affect you differently.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2msqkx",
                    "author": "Visible_Number",
                    "body": "When I was a manager at a grocery store I had an employee who was a good kid. He did a great job and we became friends. For years I would always send him a happy birthday text. I didn't know much about him other than he liked to hunt. He got married and something went sour between him, his wife, and an ex of his. I don't know the details, but he died by suicide.  \n\n\nHe was 22 I think when he died, give or take. I was flabbergasted at the people that were at his wake. There were lines leading out of the building.  \n\n\nWhat I'm trying to say is, you just don't know the impact you have on people's lives and the way your impact ripples and spirals out beyond your own comprehension.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16qtlat",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "A friend of mine recently watched *It's a Wonderful Life* and recommended it to me. Thing is, I've already seen it. I didn't tell him that what I genuinely thought is that it's a movie that fills me with existential dread.\n\n>!In case you haven't seen It's a Wonderful Life, the main character George Bailey runs a bank that is about to be driven into the ground while his competitor relishes this opportunity. He tries to commit suicide, but God sends a guardian angel to distract George from suicide. Confiding with the guardian angel that he wishes he was never born, the guardian angel shows him what the world would be like without him: !<\n\n* >!His competitor gouged the money out of the town, leaving it poor and crime-ridden!<\n* >!His wife remains unmarried!<\n* >!George isn't there to save his brother from drowning, which means his brother isn't there to save an American troop transport from a Kamikaze attack!<\n* >!A pharmacist goes to jail for manslaughter because George isn't there to prevent an accidental contamination of a prescription!<\n\nI'm the sort of person who remains unfazed even from watching graphic war footage on Reddit and horror movies like *Event Horizon*. But *It's a Wonderful Life* sends a chill down my spine - because its message does not apply to me and most other people. Its message that \"*you'd leave a large hole in the world if you were gone*\" only applies to people like that of the main character George Bailey, namely someone who:\n\n1. Saves lives\n2. Takes corporate social responsibility seriously\n3. Can avoid being corrupted by greed\n4. Is a good spouse and parent\n\nI am none of those things. I've never had the guts to try saving another person's life, I've never been in the position to use a business for corporate social responsibility, and I don't have a wife and kids (and frankly, that might be for the best because I might become abusive). Would I leave behind a large hole if I were gone? **No.** I've thought this movie through after the first time I've watched it and have come to the conclusion that my friends would probably find some other friend, and my family would probably be richer, had I not existed.\n\nHow is anyone not supposed to have existential dread after watching this movie? Sure, George Bailey is an ideal to strive for, but most of us will fail to achieve one of the above criteria, if not all 4 of them. It sure is comforting to think of ourselves as leaving behind a huge hole if we were gone, but in practice, this does not actually hold true for most of us if we think about it. Most of us are too insignificant, too cowardly, too incompetent, and too corruptible to have a positive impact as significant as George did in the movie.\n\nAt best, *It's a Wonderful Life* is a wake-up call. The movie hammers in a painful but necessary message that the world will be worse off without heroic people like George Bailey, but most of us are not heroic. We can all strive to make positive changes in our lives, but even if we do, it's no guarantee that we'd become indispensable pillars of our communities like George was in the movie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: \"It's a Wonderful Life\" is not a heart-warming movie. It fills me with existential dread.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16qtlat/cmv_its_a_wonderful_life_is_not_a_heartwarming/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfj617o",
                    "author": "andrewdiddley",
                    "body": "\ud83d\ude1e",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16qtlat"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16rdoob",
                "author": "BlitzBasic",
                "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k22th2z",
                "author": "LeastSignificantB1t",
                "body": "There's a real discipline called [AI alignment] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment) which is about finding ways to communicate an objective to an AI in a way that doesn't allow for loopholes or unwanted consequences. That isn't much different than the 'literal genie' scenario.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16rdoob"
            },
            {
                "id": "k22uw3c",
                "author": "BlitzBasic",
                "body": "!delta \n\nFair point. The story works if I don't look at the genie as a person, but rather as a inhuman system that doesn't properly grasp natural language.",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k22th2z"
            },
            {
                "id": "k22uzmi",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LeastSignificantB1t ([10\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LeastSignificantB1t)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k22uw3c"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22mqay",
                    "author": "slightofhand1",
                    "body": "It's a giant metaphor. Notice how the wishmaker always keeps making wishes, despite knowing the game the evil genie is playing. The pull is so strong they think they can just outsmart them.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22mru4",
                    "author": "KipchakVibeCheck",
                    "body": "One of the best \u201cevil genie\u201d stories out there is *The Monkey\u2019s Paw*. The whole point of it is the horror. When we yearn for things we aren\u2019t often considering how it could happen, so the various twists literally follow what is said by the protagonists but in a way that brings pain and suffering. \n\nFor example they wish for a great sum of money, and their wish is granted by having their son die in a gruesome factory accident. This isn\u2019t a misunderstanding of language, it is truthfully answering their request but in a cruel way. The horror comes from a cruel supernatural being who wants to hurt you for your desires. This isn\u2019t torture porn anymore than other horror is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22oaie",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "Their desire is not to have their family members die. That's just a thing the monkeys paw does in addition to giving them their actual desire (money).\n\nA person who says they want a lot of money clearly want that money without their family dying. They just don't say the second  part because it's implicitly clear to all reasonable listeners. Somebody ignoring this implicit part is so clearly uninterested in honest communication they might as well ignore the explicit part as well.\n\nLook at the following scenario: you with for money, a supernatural creature bludgeons your leg until it breaks with a sack of coins. Horror? Sure. Cruel? Sure. Punishing you for desires? Also sure. Clever? About as much as killing your son, which means not at all.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22mru4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22o3a7",
                    "author": "parishilton2",
                    "body": "Well, as compared to what? Evil robots? Mermaids? Aliens?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22p0ea",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "I don't know, evil robots can at least have this Frankensteinian quality of a creation turning on their creator, or the fear of being made obsolete by something superior to you.. Aliens can represent a hostile universe, or the fear of things different from you, or technologicially superior colonialist forces.\n\nEvil genies have nothing to them except their \"exact words\" gimmick, which doesn't even work because that's not how communication functions.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22o3a7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22o7m7",
                    "author": "JaysusChroist",
                    "body": ">because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication\n\nIt's funny that you say this, but you completely misunderstand the point of the story. The lesson is to be careful what you wish for. Obviously a human would understand if you said I want a million dolalrs, but the point of the genie is to demonstrate the hubris of humanity. They don't think about what they truly want, they just wish for it. Many people would take the easy way out and just wish to be rich, but no one ever thinks of the downsides, just like in life. \n\n>Evil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning.\n\nThis is the whole point. The story isn't about the genie, it's about the person and what they learn. The genie is just a means to an end for the moral of the story. You're taking the story way too literally. Obviously the genie is doing it maliciously, but why is the question.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22px9m",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "But the human **does** know what they truely want. Being bludgeoned to death by coins is in no way a real downside of being rich, it's just an arbitrary punishment tacked on to the wish by a genie that deliberately misunderstands the desires of the human.\n\nWhat does the human learn except to keep the fingers away from genies? That being rich actually sucks? It doesn't. Being rich is great. Being arbitrarily murdered by somebody who pretends to have zero listening comprehension, that sucks.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22o7m7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22p11p",
                    "author": "Drawsome_Stuff",
                    "body": "They're based off of actual trickster spirits, djinn.\n\nGenies are like that because they're demons.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22plmc",
                    "author": "ReOsIr10",
                    "body": ">Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space.\n\nIf a person says \"I wish I had a million dollars\", there's a meaningful difference between a genie crushing the person in a million dollars worth of coins and the genie injecting a fatal dose of neurotoxin into the person's bloodstream. An English speaker *could* possibly mean the former with that wish, but they *could not* mean the latter. Both are intentional misinterpretations by the genie, but the former is only a \"misinterpretation\" of the speaker's likely preferences, while the latter requires a \"misinterpretation\" of how English is spoken.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22qdtv",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "An english speaker could have also invented a code language where \"I wish I had a million dollars\" means \"I want a fatal dose of neurotoxin in my bloodstream\". \n\nIs that incredibly unlikely? Yes, of course, but so is somebody saying \"I wish I had a million dollars\" actually desiring to be crushed under coins.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22plmc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22q1hd",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "Genie (djinn) is just the Arabic word for demon.  They would like to eat you, not grant your wishes. If somehow forced, you cannot expect them to be nicer than they are absolutely forced to be.  \"Evil\" is not an overused take on genie any more than \"crying\" is an overused take on baby.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22qrtb",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "Okay, but how is \"they can interpretate your words in any way, even if it makes no sense\" forcing them to grant your wishes? They're clearly not forced to grant your wishes if they can just murder you in a superficially ironic way independent of what you say.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22q1hd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22qosp",
                    "author": "scarab456",
                    "body": "> isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way  \n\nI mean, that's the point of Monkey's Paw short story. It serves an element of the plot. It work on horror level, dramatic tension, and thematically, the whole \"be careful what you wish for\" lesson. You can argue it's cliche or you don't like it, but doesn't mean it's uninteresting.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22remu",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "Except it's not \"be careful what you wish for\". If you wish to be rich and it turns out that rich people live lonely and shallow lives, that's \"be careful that you wish for\".\n\nIf you wish to be rich and I murder your family, that's just hurting you in a way that has nothing to do with what you actually wished for.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22qosp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22qp8f",
                    "author": "Thedeaththatlives",
                    "body": "If nothing else, evil genies are interesting in that they make you wonder how you could word your wish without getting screwed over.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22qz14",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "You can't. Your words don't matter, because the genie is not actually trying to understand you, and communication doesn't works if one party refuses to participate. That's my point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22qp8f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22toa5",
                    "author": "BJPark",
                    "body": "All that's needed is to ask an outside observer \"Was the wish fulfilled?\"\n\nIf the answer is \"yes\", then the genie interpreted the wish correctly as per the prevailing meaning of the words. If the answer is \"no\", then the genie has failed.\n\nSo did a person who got crushed under a million coins get their wish fulfilled?",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22umiy",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "Did a person the genie handed a million dollars in big bills inside a briefcase, and then shot in the face with a gun, get their wish fulfilled?\n\nYeah, sure. It just wasn't particularily clever or interesting.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k22toa5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22wp78",
                    "author": "SobriKate",
                    "body": "This very much depends on your culture and what kind of evil genies you mean. I think it\u2019s myopic to characterize evil genies as you are, especially since there are so many more nuances involved. My general impression is that these stories and their modern counterparts are both saying, \u201cbe careful what you wish for,\u201d and \u201cdon\u2019t trust magic to solve your life\u2019s problems.\u201d Sure, most protagonists don\u2019t expect Rube Goldbergian or Bedazzledesque consequences to their wishes, but even Disney shows that the wishes fulfilled do not actually solve the problems of the protagonist. \n\nThe times Aladdin is saved come at the cost of a wish, and through tricking the genie themselves in the cave. Wishing to be a prince had been his wish since he sang his first song street-rat, but once he actually wished it, the unforeseen consequence was that Aladdin still had no idea how to be a prince or what princeling even entailed, nor how to invent an entire country and monarchy around him or parents to be king and queen. Each wish in Aladdin by the titular character does eventually come true, but the story wouldn\u2019t be interesting if you skipped the middle hour.  Thus, even with a \u201cgood\u201d genie, only two wishes actually go to plan and is actually wished for; Genie\u2019s freedom, and Jafar\u2019s enslavement as a Genie.\n\nHere\u2019s a good section from Wikipedia that I think fits your description of evil genie, but keep in mind that the Ifrit, Jinn (spelled as Djinn in some works), and Genies have myriad versions that are not the same as traditional western folklore and Disney. American Gods has an excellent depiction of Djinn as well, in case you\u2019re interested. \n\n\u201cIn \"The Fisherman and the Jinni\" an ifrit, locked in a jar by the Seal of Solomon, is released but later tricked by the fisherman again into the jar. Under the condition that the ifrit aids him to achieve riches, he releases the ifrit again.[30] The latter ifrit, however, might be substituted by a marid, another type of powerful demon[29][3] easily tricked by the protagonist.[31] The latter portrayal of an ifrit, as a wish-granting spirit released from a jar, became characteristic of Western depictions of jinn.\u201d\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ifrit\n\nHere is another good reference for the differences of Jinn, Genie, Ifrit and Marids. The unifying theme I\u2019ve found just by Google searching is that the names can be used interchangeably although ifrit are associated with fire, and there can be demonic or otherworldly aspects to the tales involving these types of entities. Typically, the demonic types take revenge for having some part of their power used or taken by a protagonist which makes the \u201cwishes\u201d essentially monkey\u2019s paw with unforeseen consequences because a mortal is using power they don\u2019t understand for personal gain. \n\nhttps://1001recaps.org/2020/06/26/jinn-ifrits-marids/#:~:text=An%20Ifrit%20is%20normally%20thought,of%20destruction%20and%20very%20dangerous.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22ya76",
                    "author": "Doc_ET",
                    "body": "Evil genies are essentially lawful evil- they're malicious, but there's rules to what they can and can't do. It's also something of a battle of wits- if you can add enough caveats and rules to your request, you can gain incredible rewards, but if you slip up, there will be dire consequences.\n\nThink of a genie like a contract lawyer, basically.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22za9l",
                    "author": "StarBrownie",
                    "body": "one, genies arent human so they dont really would undersand us\n\ntwo, their evil meaning their goal is to harm you. they don't care what you want .They want to not give you what you want. they want you to die or suffer or something. if you're talking about a non-evil genie the first part probably applies \n\nthe genie is never ever the point of the story, nor the miscommunication. its usually about the asker, and the author makes the genie do whatever to show a lesson to the asker. either it being \" be careful of what you wish for\" or whatever else they want",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k22zzg2",
                    "author": "dave7243",
                    "body": "Evil genies are the penultimate malicious compliance. They give you exactly what you sked for, but since they hate you they don't give you exactly what you want. They are compelled to grant your wishes, but they do not appreciate being magical slaves so they interpret the wishes in ways to mess with you since that is the only form of resistance they have available.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k235i4s",
                    "author": "Killmotor_Hill",
                    "body": "OP seems to have a tenous grasp on language and it's capabilities while bitching about language.\n\nOP is stoned.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ozjr",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "Drunk, actually.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k235i4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23b0k1",
                    "author": "Moonblaze13",
                    "body": "You're not considering the evil genie as a character unto themselves. They are beings of massively more power than the average human who are enslaved to their petty whims.\n\nYou are correct that they aren't clever. They are vendicitive.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23nkui",
                    "author": "Any-Angle-8479",
                    "body": "Well someone\u2019s wish obviously went badly",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23nqaj",
                    "author": "Jevonar",
                    "body": "Stories that include an evil genie are not about the genie. They are about human nature, where people know the genie will likely fuck them over, and yet they still ask it for wishes, trying to control an uncontrollable force: they are stories about hubris.\n\nFurthermore, they are a metaphor for not realizing that your dreams coming true could actually be bad for you. You might not be crushed by a million dollars in coins, but your newfound riches could cause you more problems than they solve. Taxes, social relationships degrading, attempted assassination/robbery...",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23ruwr",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "> A genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nLanguage is inherently ambiguous, and the evil genie narrative is essentially about taking part in a game where you're trying to outsmart someone who is smarter than yourself.\n\nOne of the reasons that it's acceptable for the genie to trick humans, is that humans will typically also attempt to trick the genie into granting things that are supposedly outside of the scope of its powers, like more/unlimited wishes, world peace, immortality, magical powers, real love etc.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23vov5",
                    "author": "southpolefiesta",
                    "body": "You picked a really not so interesting way to \"fuck over\" the wishers.\n\nHowever interesting the story is and what themes will be explored depends entirely on the skill of the author.\n\nA person wishing for a million dollars and then being instantly crushed with pennies, can be played for a quick joke.\n\nBut there many other ways to handle.  Say you have a blue collar worker who has a nice family and kids and is poor but happy. He wished for a million dollar which leads to his family turning on him,  kids slowly  becoming lazy addicts and his wife divorcing him for half the remaining money. He ends up lonely and miserable,  and money still runs out 5 years later and he goes back to the same job, but much more miserable.  \n\nThis can be a much more interesting story exploring the theme of money not being everything and how a windfall can corrupt.\n\nIt's really up to the imagination of the author whether and evil genie wish story will succeed or not.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23x006",
                    "author": "dale_glass",
                    "body": "I think the interesting version is \"be careful with what you wish for\". That is, the genie isn't out to screw you over, but also doesn't care to help you. You'll get exactly what you asked for, even if it wasn't what you wanted.\n\nEg, in Madoka Magica, Sayaka is in love with a sick boy. She wishes for him to recover. And it happens, with zero downside whatsoever. He gets well, nobody has to suffer for it, there's no ironic twist to it. But what Sayaka really wanted was for him to love her, and he seems to be way less into her than she was into him. Also she didn't realize at the time that her soul was the payment for her wish, and now considers herself unworthy of him. Her friend rather darkly pointed out that she should have wished for him to remain sick and be forever dependent on her instead, as that was closer to her real desire.\n\nThe plot also has a part is made to save a cat from dying. The cat is saved. Nothing really goes wrong because it was a perfectly simple, honest wish.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23z8id",
                    "author": "Mammoth-Phone6630",
                    "body": "How do you feel about Faust?",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k23zpte",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "The book by Goethe? I've only read excerpts, but as far as I can tell it's a pretty influential tragedy and one of the great classics of german literature. Why do you ask?",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k23z8id"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k248pl3",
                    "author": "Mestoph",
                    "body": "You said that words do not have inherent meaning and claim it's other people who don't understand communication? Evil Genies are not \"deliberately misinterpreting\" what the person making the wish wants. They are being true to their evil nature and delivering the wish in the worst possible way. It's the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k249op0",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "My point is that \"the letter of the law\" doesn't matters. The meaning of laws is created by the people that interpretate and enforce them. If a justice system consistently punishes a certain behaviour, that behaviour is factually illegal, independent of what the actual text of the laws state.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k248pl3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k259rnz",
                    "author": "PB219",
                    "body": "Yo I have got something that might blow your mind, but evil genies aren\u2019t real.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k25f6jm",
                    "author": "MobileManager6757",
                    "body": "I'm imagining the scenario (and amount of weed involved) that bore this post.\n\nOn the one hand you are correct that meaning is ascribed to words based an a myriad of elements (society, experience, education etc). However, miscommunications are everywhere, so words can be interpreted \"honestly\" but still be incorrect.\n\nHowever, I believe the point of many \"evil genie\" stories is not actually about the genie but rather the human element of greed. A person is greedy and winds up paying for it in an unexpected way. The genie is a device that brings about someone's downfall and is not inherently a compelling character.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k25upma",
                    "author": "delichtig",
                    "body": "Genies as metaphor have been done by the comments. Genies exist in story as metaphor for shortcuts and seeking too much which seems to justify the trope so how about genies as creatures.\n\nWhy does a genie have to think like a human or actually consider what the human might really want? Why can't the genie have the goal of messing with the wisher? They're cosmic beings of absurd power who get stuck in tiny cramped spaces for millennia. When they're not stuck they're in servitude. Seems to me finding ways to enjoy oneself or express self could turn quite sour after many masters so to speak.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k26z98c",
                    "author": "apatheticviews",
                    "body": "Genies often fall into the r/maliciouscompliance camp.\n\nThey\u2019re powerful, old, and bored. They are trying to find a little bit of amusement.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27do99",
                    "author": "Tioben",
                    "body": "They make a great metaphor for politicians and lobbyists who misconstrue the stated wishes of their constituents.  Especially since, once in power, its hard to put such genies back in the bottle.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k27vxdv",
                    "author": "Fourteenhives",
                    "body": "I think op missed the point. The point is that people who ask for money or fixes to their problems are usually asking for the wrong thing. If you are asking for money you are asking for trouble. Its a metaphor, not a miscommunication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k28l7pc",
                    "author": "dylan6091",
                    "body": "What you seem to have stumbled on is akin to two schools constitutional interpretation: originalism vs. textualism. Both schools of thought are valid, but place emphasis in different sources to derive a word's meaning.\n\nOriginalism supposes the interpretor should know the intent of the speaker. While originalism attempts to effect the wishes of the author most closely, the downside is that 1. People don't always speak or write clearly, 2. We don't always have the context needed to truly know the intent, and 3. Listener-dependent interpretation will naturally have a range of interpretations rather than have a consistent and reliable meaning.\n\nOn the other hand, textualism supposes we can get a more consistent and reliable interpretation by drawing on dictionary meanings rather than contextual clues. This can lead to absurd results on occasion, but the result should at least be consistent. The benefit is that 1. It encourages authors to be precise in their meanings, and 2. If a policy does lead to an absurd result, the source of that absurdity can be quickly identified and remedied with more precise word-smithing.\n\nBringing this all back to the evil genie concept, I think you may be under-appreciating why a textually correct (albeit evil) interpretation can be seen as clever or at least interesting.",
                    "date": "2023-09-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16rdoob",
                    "author": "BlitzBasic",
                    "body": "If somebody tells you \"I want a million dollars\", do you believe that they want to be crushed to death under a wave of coins? Yes? Then you should feel ashamed of yourself and not be allowed near money, people or communication. No? Congratulations, you understand the basic concept of language.\n\nEvil genies work by interpretating the wish in a way that fucks over the wisher, but still asheres to the wording of the wish. Except that words do not have, and never had, any inherant meaning. Meaning is something the speaker tries to put into the words, and the listener tries to take out of the words. A speaker wishing for money clearly does not desire to die to money appearing in an inconvenient format and space. If a genie genuinely thinks that that's what the person wants, they're clearly an utter idiot and while tragic, not clever or interesting. With that level of idioticy, they might as well have done any other random thing while claiming to fulfill the wish.\n\nA genie who understands the meaning correctly, but deliberately misinterprets it, isn't clever or interesting either. They don't interpretate the words in a valid, but inconvenient way - they \"interpretate\" the words in a way they are aware is utterly divorced from what the speaker actually tried to convey. They're basically ignoring the communication in favor of doing random shit that only seems related to the words on a surface level.\n\nThe only reason people ever thought the concept of evil genies was something other than braindead torture porn is because most people don't actually grasp the meaning of communication.",
                    "date": "2023-09-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There is nothing clever or interesting about evil genies.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16rdoob/cmv_there_is_nothing_clever_or_interesting_about/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2d8419",
                    "author": "Chicago_Synth_Nerd_",
                    "body": "Anyone who plays with an evil genie is a moron and evil genies themselves are neither clever or interesting. I would never ask anything from an evil genie.",
                    "date": "2023-09-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16rdoob"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "16tscm2",
                "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                "date": "2023-09-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k2gxwf3",
                "author": "DuhChappers",
                "body": "I would say that your summary of incel culture is rather incomplete. Your concluding line is this: \n\n> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIf that was indeed an accurate summary of incel beliefs, no one would care. They would even be correct to a certain extent, society might warrant some changes to better allow people to connect. We can talk about destruction of public spaces, internet polarization and echo chambers, dating apps making swiping a game and trying to get your money more than get you success.\n\nBut as you say later, incels are not looking to change these things, at least not mostly. They want to blame and hate women for not fucking them. That's the objectionable part. There are men who are lonely or 'involuntary celibates' who I would not lump in with the negative incels because they don't blame women, they just don't have good luck dating.\n\nSo yeah, I would definitely say the defining flaw of incels is sexism.  If they weren't sexist, they wouldn't be a problem.",
                "date": "2023-09-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "16tscm2"
            },
            {
                "id": "k2gz5qh",
                "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                "body": "I hadn't considered that explanation of sexism before. View different now than it was before. \u0394",
                "date": "2023-09-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k2gxwf3"
            },
            {
                "id": "k2gzawg",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers ([66\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DuhChappers)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-09-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k2gz5qh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gv402",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "You're using (exaggerated caricatures of) progressive, liberal logic, but incels aren't generally liberal or progressive, they're right-wing. Why would a right-wing group use progressive logic, even unconsciously?",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gvrgw",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "Because the change in personal responsibility is nonpartisan.\n\nEssentially it's gone from \"you're responsible for taking care of yourself\" TO \"You're responsible for doing your part to contribute to society\" TO \"Society is responsible for taking care of you\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2gv402"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gvkss",
                    "author": "Dyeeguy",
                    "body": "I think one problem with the whole issue is people just define \u201cincel\u201d as whatever they want. \n\nWomen haters, people who can\u2019t have sex, someone just very strange and weird, or some combo of them \n\nAs far as I know, it is just men who can\u2019t have sex. And unlike your other examples, that is not necessarily wrong. That doesn\u2019t mean someone needs to change, or someone is responsible for wrong doing",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gw9nr",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "If someone is just not having sex, no of course that isn't inherently wrong.\n\nThe part that's wrong is the \"I can't have sex\" (even though they almost all could if they actually made an effort) \"...and that's unfair so society should change to accommodate me\" (their solution is other people should change to best suit them, not that they should change themselves)",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2gvkss"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gwtod",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": ">This logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\nYou present these examples as though \"society\" agrees wtih this logic. Clearly there isn't a consensus on this as they are all very debated and discussed issues. Is this merely an \"i'm trying to use your own logic against you\" post built around a strawman of what \"your own\" logic is?\n\n>Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.\n\nExplaining why concluding X doesn't require us to conclude Y seems entirely relevant to the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gxel0",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think it has to be reduced to a single factor. There have been other things that have influenced it\u2019s creation and growth, such as the erosion of the middle class, the internet/social media, Covid forcing less social interactions, Donald trump",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ha7jx",
                    "author": "Tarkooving",
                    "body": ">such as the erosion of the middle class\n\nwtf does this have to do with incels? Are you implying women only date men who make have a really good income?",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2gxel0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gxqjb",
                    "author": "Best_Frame_9023",
                    "body": "Here I am defining incels as people who actually participate in the online incel subculture, not just \u201cawkward young men who are kind of frustrated about being virgins\u201d: \n\nThe actual, capital B *blackpill* (not the redpill, which is different) that incel boards at least formally claim to believe in, usually doesn\u2019t really believe women *can* change their standards. It is simply biologically hardwired in them to be unattracted to people who look like they do and nothing will change that. It is strictly focused on physical attributes that are largely unchangeable, particularly face, penis size and height. They don\u2019t believe any amount of career or money (never mind personality - laughable idea to them) can make up for that and actually make a woman genuinely attracted to them instead of just using them for money. Only in the past it didn\u2019t seem that way because women were socially forced to marry someone. \n\nSome incels, especially people new to the subculture, do go around blaming women and claiming they should lower their standards and so on. But \u201celder\u201d members will either support a return to a conservatism where women are forced to marry someone again, or tell them that it is just hopeless. Mostly the latter, because incels typically don\u2019t just desire sex. They desire genuine attraction from the woman\u2019s side. There\u2019s a reason prostitution doesn\u2019t \u201ccount\u201d to them. \n\n\nI think you may actually be right that most incel board members aren\u2019t black pill but rather red pill adjacent (women semi-choose the best man from a combination of factors including career and confidence etc), but the actual incel ideology that is distinct from red pill and pick up artistry is not what you describe. \n\nMan I know too much about these stupid online ideologies lol.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gzat0",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "Actually asking: Was this meant to change my view at all? Could you point out what part if so please.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2gxqjb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gy5lp",
                    "author": "translove228",
                    "body": "Inceldom is a branch of red pill ideology called black pill. That alone makes it sexist",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2iiu6s",
                    "author": "redial3",
                    "body": "well, no this isn\u2019t correct. many incels subscribe to those ideologies but the term incel dates back to a disabled woman who coined the term making a support group for lonely people.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2gy5lp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gy8bz",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">In this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex. Rather than improving themselves to be more attractive (grooming, have careers instead of jobs, have hobbies and interests, have proper body fat %, have a sense of fashion, etc...)\n\nThe reason incels \"can't\" have sex is not because they're shaggy, gross basement dwellers. \n\nIt's BECAUSE they're incels, by which I mean toxic asshats who think women are somehow not people and exist to have sex and cook for men, and that they \"deserve\" not just a woman to ... whatever, sit in the basement in lingerie waiting for attention, but they \"deserve\" a woman who looks like an anime character crossed with Ariana Grande or whatever.\n\nYou're talking like their problem is not being able to get laid. \n\nThat is decidedly NOT their problem. It's a symptom of their problems.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h41n1",
                    "author": "Mr_Makak",
                    "body": "Wait, are you seriously claiming no man who isn't a toxic asshat struggles with finding sex partners?",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "k2gy8bz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2gz4vc",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "The biggest issue is that those in the Western World just don't feel the need to socialize anymore ([https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/reports/loneliness-in-america](https://mcc.gse.harvard.edu/reports/loneliness-in-america)) There is so much instant entertainment available now; why even bother finding friends, let alone friends with benefits?\n\nSecondly, according to the research, the biggest issue affecting the serious decline in marriage in the US is that so few men are \"marriage\" material ([https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects/](https://nypost.com/2019/09/06/broke-men-are-hurting-american-womens-marriage-prospects/)) \n\nPut the two together, and women are struggling to find anyone worth their time.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h155k",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "Don't incels have a strong desire to find a mate though?\n\nI don't disagree with the validity of your points, I'm just not seeing how it applies to inceldom. I don't think their things is \"eh, it's not worth it\" (I think that's more the \"voluntarily single because women are horrible\" community)",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2gz4vc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h0atw",
                    "author": "WorldsGreatestWorst",
                    "body": "You're attempting to attribute a regressive, right-wing(ish) movement to leftist philosophy. I've never spoken to an incel feminist or an incel anti-racist. \n\n>'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nYou attribute this idea that \"the world should be fair\" with leftwing people begging for handouts. But you could replace sex in this example with farm subsidies or not being taxed as much and it would suddenly sound very right-wing. Everyone wants the world to be what they consider fair and everyone thinks they deserve their particular handouts.  \n\n\n>This logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well\n\nWhat is \"our society\"? It's not a monolith. There are currently conservatives using their political weight to end free school lunch programs and democrats being lead by a bunch of elderly centrists. This PC world you seem to despise isn't nearly as common as you imply. \n\nBasically, **you haven't shown that society as a whole actually cares about these PC hot button culture issues**, you've just declared it. Sure, some fat people want bigger seats... but it hasn't happened. Yeah, people don't like when other people say or do mean shit... but Dave Chappelle still makes millions from his Netflix specials. None of this stuff is new and very little of it has made any difference in the world that looks any different from any other shift over time. \n\nSo while I agree that incel culture comes from a pathetic sense of entitlement, I don't think you can successfully link it to any new cultural trends\u2014everyone has always been entitled and selfish. The real reason incels are a thing today and not 20 years ago is that now these dolts can congeal in online forums to radicalize while in the past, they'd just be individual sad guys alone somewhere.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h56pv",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "I should have clarified this in the post but didn't. Often I neglect to list right wing examples because most already agree.\n\nMost recent right wing examples would be using the government to control private company culture they don't like. It's the same cake with different icing.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2h0atw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h0w6n",
                    "author": "Swing-Full",
                    "body": "\"inceldom\" isn't some new thing. \n\nMost men didn't procreate or have relationships in the past for various reasons including looks, personality and social class.\n\nThe difference between now and then is that people have social to talk and share their ideas with the whole world instead of just ranting at people at the pub.\n\nIt's been a part of life from day 1, people want laid, but are too ugly or have a bad personality and thus whine about it.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h0z5g",
                    "author": "LetterheadNo1752",
                    "body": "I suspect much of this sense of agreement, rage, hopelessness, etc., stems from envy. \n\nThey seem to be overwhelmed by envy for both men and women who they think have an easy time dating and getting into relationships.\n\nI'm lucky in my own life that I rarely feel \"green with envy\", but when I have, it's *such* a bad feeling.\n\nI can imagine some one living with that feeling everyday could end up with fucked up thoughts and behaviors",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hdc4r",
                    "author": "0ffnliner",
                    "body": "I've gotten envious thoughts that last me a bit during my highschool years, and I've done some very stupid shit to relieve myself of that shitty feeling. But I can't say it last as long as it does for some people online. I think it's more of an obsession they choose as an escapism to run away from confronting their problem - which is very much themselves.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2h0z5g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h1svi",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "There seems to be an implication that our society has recently changed to have a poor relationship with responsibility, and that this change has caused the rise of the incel culture.\n\nWhen has society had a good relationship with responsibility?  It seems to me like humans are always trying to get others to do hard work for them, regardless of nation or culture.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h4uvw",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "I'm not sure about the current state to be honest. It might end up being very good infact. I'm just not sure yet. Right now, yeah obviously I don't like it, but the GenX bias I have is unavoidable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2h1svi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h2q3e",
                    "author": "yyzjertl",
                    "body": "The obvious problem with your view on its face is that it isn't actually grounded in any engagement with or quotes of incel texts. Trying to impose a \"basic logic\" on this community in place of an actual examination of what its members do and say is fundamentally backwards.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h5025",
                    "author": "Mr_Makak",
                    "body": "This honestly sounds like a thought ending cliche. You can say that about any and all social problems.\n\nJobless? Well, your actual problem is that you think you're *entitled* to a job!\n\nStarving? Well, your actual problem is that you think you're *entitled* to be fed!\n\nDying of a treatable disease? Well, your actual problem is that you think you're *entitled* to healthcare!\n\nYour kids died in a house fire? Well, your actual problem is that you think you're *entitled* to living kids!",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hch5x",
                    "author": "Tarkooving",
                    "body": "The \"entitled argument\" really has become a catch all phrase that roughly translates to \"I hate these people so I am going to dismiss them\" and is used constantly.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2h5025"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2h9j0m",
                    "author": "BrockVelocity",
                    "body": "Is it true that society's standards for personal responsibility have fallen over the decades? I'm not so sure. You bring up a few examples to illustrate that they have, but there are plenty of counter-examples that would suggest that society places a *higher* value on personal responsibility that it once did.\n\nFor instance, look at the #MeToo movement and the [Weinstein Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weinstein_effect) that followed. Regardless of your overall feelings about #MeToo, it's undeniable that as a result of the movement, a ton of prominent men who were once able to get away with toxic, abusive behavior are no longer able to do so. They've been forced to take responsibility for their actions in a way that they weren't forced to in the past.\n\nEven the examples that you brought up don't quite prove what you say they do. If somebody says something that offends someone else, they are often (but not always!) expected to apologize for it. They are being forced to take more personal responsibility for their words than they might have in the past.\n\nNow of course, in all of these examples, we can disagree about which party is in the wrong and, as a result, which party should be required to take personal responsibility. But that's a different debate. In all of your examples, and mine, somebody is being held to a high degree of personal responsibility, suggesting that society has not devalued personal responsibility over time.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hbxuy",
                    "author": "Holiday_Extent_5811",
                    "body": "Inceldom is more ab offshoot of our society leaving so many people behind and very little to do with personal responsibility. In fact, the documentary on incels that was on Amazon went into this, that got everyone in a tizzy, because the female director dare sympathize with them by the end.\n\nThe reality is jobs pay shit for a long time today, and in a society with massive wealth inequality, that\u2019s a huge deal.  In fact more egalitarian societies have happier people and relationships because there is much more sexual dimorphism between sexes.  In societies like ours, it\u2019s all about the dollar, and there\u2019s really nothing inherently masculine about that in itself.  \n\nFirst year electrician apprentices make 14 an hour in central florida.  You don\u2019t even make a survivable wage until you are a journeyman and that leaves very little money for taking dates out.  \n\nI\u2019m a progressive. I find it funny people will make every excuse in the book for people, except for young men.  They sense this, they aren\u2019t getting what they want, they are being demonized, and it breeds resentment.  This shit isn\u2019t rocket science",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ijli0",
                    "author": "redial3",
                    "body": "I\u2019m progressive and I\u2019d probably be considered technically femcel and we deal with something similar but the equivalent is usually just something like \u201close weight\u201d or \u201chave a better personality\u201d when in fact you can be skinny and objectively ugly and nobody really cares about your personality because women are judged/valued for our appearances and nothing we do matters unless we deliver sex appeal while doing it, fail to do that and you don\u2019t just end up alone you end up a pariah.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2hbxuy"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2he38h",
                    "author": "AncientKroak",
                    "body": ">\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\nIncel culture doesn't even exist, other than the Internet thinking it's real.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hgotj",
                    "author": "Unbreakable2k8",
                    "body": "I don't think \"society should change because this is unfair', but I think it would help to show compassion first of all. Being open about their issues and maybe help them improve and overcome it is the way, and society should \"change\" in regards to this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hgz2b",
                    "author": "AGRESSIVELYCORRECT",
                    "body": "I think the one thing I would put a lot of the blame on, which isn't necessarily incels or women is just the mechanism by which we pair off. To me it seems weird to suggest young men now are worse people, or just far lazier compared to previous generations, and yet the dating market did clear much better back in the day. So Ill list some of the things it might be.  \n\n\n1. A factor could be choice overload for the sex that has to choose, namely women. Dating apps and the internet have moved dating from a very restricted market to a wide market, this plays very badly with biases in the brain which tell us that the grass is always greener on the other side, as we can now permanently see the questionably realistic otherside. Which is not a problem if you have 20 men to pick from which you all know, you can quite easily understand where you fit in the pecking order, and thus will be more confident of your choice and more likely to make a choice. \n2. Past choice overload it might be that our standards have gone up on one or both sides of the gender divide, due to excessive exposure to \"perfection\" on social media or tv. \n3. Lack of face to face human contact between the sexes lowering chance encounters, which I would suggest are an easier way of most people to actually find a partner. As in you are much more likely to successfully pair off with someone you meet on a regular basis for some activity than a tinder swipe. Yet the situations in which that happens has been drastically reduced. \n4. Lack of effort due to defeatism, this one is more gendered as its still generally the man that has to make the first moves. But one could think that the general media attitudes might make some men less willing to face rejections in trying to date women as they have basically convinced themselves its a losing game. But the old adage you miss all the shots you don't take holds true.  \n\nThere's probably more you can come up with but I think putting all the blame on this group of mostly autistic nerds is somewhat victimblame'y even if their way of expressing displeasure is not generally socially acceptable. And to be frank from the media coverage and general experience it doesn't just seem to be incels that are finding the dating market harder to navigate. There's a reason things like this exist : [https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2019/08/22/dont-just-look-at-gen-z-or-millennials-single-women-promise-to-be-formidable-consumers/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/andriacheng/2019/08/22/dont-just-look-at-gen-z-or-millennials-single-women-promise-to-be-formidable-consumers/)\n\nSo all the more reason to at least take the complains seriously although maybe not the people -\\_- in this way we might discover a way we can clear the market again.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hlb1u",
                    "author": "Tarkooving",
                    "body": "Another factor toward choice overload is there is a surplus of men to women in the US population alone (and generally, everywhere else on the planet) at ages 15-35 and it doesn't start to equalize until about 45 which is of course way too late. Not only is a perpetually single/virgin man going to be resentful for finally having a chance at that stage of his life but a woman at that stage isn't going to want anything to do with him either.  \n\n\nAssuming everyone paired off permanently, there would be million(s) of men who either have to settle with each other regardless of their orientation, or accept they are going to be alone forever and if incel/blackpill subculture is any indication, they usually commit suicide in one form or another.\n\n&#x200B;\n\nA lot of men were screwed from the start. Their only options are radical action or defeatism.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2hgz2b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hixga",
                    "author": "Wide_Connection9635",
                    "body": "I'd say your view is not wrong... just incomplete.\n\nFrom an individual level, you are right that these people should be taking personal responsibility to work towards their goals.\n\nHowever, you cannot ignore society. We are a social species and we have always existed within a social order. Society has to provide something so things can function. Whether that is law and order, financial system, sexual ways...\n\nI listened to a podcast recently that talked about population decline. One of the more interesting points was our education system. We keep pushing more and more education upfront, so realistically,  people are only feeling comfortable starting a family at like 30. That's not a long time to get everything in order.\n\nWhat if we allowed people to start work earlier. Apprentiships. Doing masters/phd later in life after working for a while. Candidates should not automatically be preferred just because they have more education. It should be 'can you do the job' \n\nAnd it goes the spectrum from divorce laws to what we teach young men and women about life. Forget incels for a minute. The number of good women over 30 in my family... not married is sad. They want to, but waited too long. Nobody told them this would happen. I feel bad because they are good people. Society should guide people.\n\nSociety could even provide things like marriage counselling before marriage...\n\nI wont go much further except to say as an individual, it is only productive to focus personal responsibility. But you can't ignore the impact of how society operates.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ho5qs",
                    "author": "Due-Lie-8710",
                    "body": "not necessarily incels have always been a thing, and people have always shat on them, just for different reasons",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hpsit",
                    "author": "Kilburning",
                    "body": ">In this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex. Rather than improving themselves to be more attractive (grooming, have careers instead of jobs, have hobbies and interests, have proper body fat %, have a sense of fashion, etc...)\n\nThe problem is that the standard we're talking about is how they are treating others. That bar is already pretty low, and expecting people others to settle for jerks is unreasonable.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2hxw17",
                    "author": "Your_Valuable_Butler",
                    "body": "Your understanding of inceldom is flawed because it oversimplifies a complex issue and relies on inaccurate stereotypes. Inceldom is not solely about personal responsibility but a combination of factors, including societal norms, mental health, and social dynamics. Reducing it to a lack of personal effort is dismissive and unhelpful.\nIn short, your perspective is overly simplistic and dismissive of the real pain experienced by many incels. To truly comprehend this issue, you need to dig deeper and acknowledge the complexities and emotions involved.\n\nWhy your perspective is problematic:\n\n1. Oversimplification: You reduce inceldom to a simple desire for sex, ignoring the emotional and psychological aspects of it. Incels often long for companionship, intimacy, and human connection, which go beyond mere sexual desire.\n\n2. Blaming External Factors: You claim that incels blame external factors and avoid self-improvement. While some may exhibit this behavior, it's essential to recognize that many incels do make efforts to better themselves. They face various challenges, including mental health issues, social anxiety, and societal expectations.\n\n3. False Analogies: Comparing inceldom to unrelated issues like body positivity or taking offense to words is a false analogy. Inceldom is a unique challenge centered around forming human relationships, which involves intricate dynamics and complexities that differ from these other issues.\nIncels aren't demanding changes in beauty standards; they seek understanding and connection. They're not upset by words but by genuine struggles in forming relationships. Drawing parallels with triggers is an oversimplification. Managing emotional triggers is a matter of mental health, while inceldom relates to difficulties in finding companionship.\n\n4. Misunderstanding Privilege: Suggesting that removing the association with white men would make inceldom more acceptable oversimplifies the problem. Inceldom affects individuals from diverse backgrounds, and it's not solely about privilege. It's about shared feelings of loneliness and isolation, which can affect anyone, regardless of their background. Incels face unique challenges that shouldn't be disregarded based on demographics.\n\n5. Lack of Empathy: Your perspective lacks empathy for individuals experiencing inceldom. It's crucial to understand that many of them are dealing with significant emotional pain, loneliness, and a sense of rejection. Reducing their struggles to mere entitlement overlooks their genuine suffering.\n\nIn summary, your understanding of inceldom needs to be more nuanced and considerate of the complex emotional and social factors at play. \nReducing this issue to personal responsibility is not only inaccurate but also unhelpful in addressing the underlying problems faced by incels.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2i0m7c",
                    "author": "killerboss2424",
                    "body": "I try not to get involved in these discussions too much and find both Andrew Tate worshippers and radical feminists to be extremely unhealthy, but what the hell, I'll indulge a little lmao.\n\nAnyway, I can't help but notice that every few weeks or so, there seems to be some huge story about some sports star/celebrity/youtuber or some high profile name raping/sexually assaulting or beating a woman/women. The most recent one is Russell Brand.\n\nMost of these dudes clearly very confident, very popular, social etc and not socially awkward or involuntarily celebate at all. Yet women seem to be much more quiet on these kind of stories. Why? The potential status/celebrity/money/power that these men are able to offer them is my guess.\n\nLong story short, most people who are involuntarily celebate are harmless and not a threat to women and they should be much more worried about sports jocks and rich celebrities etc.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2j8aal",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2i0m7c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2i1fhw",
                    "author": "enephon",
                    "body": "Lack of personal responsibility is necessary but not sufficient. The part that turns it into inceldom is self-pity. The overwhelming sense of \u201cpoor me\u201d moves them from self-loathing to hatred of others.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2i3te3",
                    "author": "Ok-Comedian-6725",
                    "body": "\"personal responsibility\" is something that exists by default.  we all have ultimate physical responsibility for all own actions.  bringing up personal responsibility as a cause or solution to problems is like talking about the effectiveness of the sun in causing crime.  its a truism, it is the reality of our world.  therefore, what talking about it really is is just purposefully not coming up with genuine answers, to emotionally blame people for being shitty and that's why shitty things happen to them.  its not a solution, its just what feels good emotionally to you to say",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2i4g72",
                    "author": "Unfair_Explanation53",
                    "body": "Are they still incels if they visit sex workers.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2i5dwp",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "Afaik, yes",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2i4g72"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2iabin",
                    "author": "rubysunshine999",
                    "body": "The solution to Male Loneliness is literally just being a better person.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ikjj4",
                    "author": "Ok-Owl-3161",
                    "body": "Being a better person doesn't make you sexually attractive to women?",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2iabin"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ied0z",
                    "author": "redial3",
                    "body": "Disclaimer: I am not here to defend red pill type misogyny, but I do want to point out where you get aspects of incel culture wrong for the sake of this post. \n\n> In this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex. Rather than improving themselves to be more attractive (grooming, have careers instead of jobs, have hobbies and interests, have proper body fat %, have a sense of fashion, etc...)\n\nWhat you get wrong here is that many of them do this, the term looksmaxxing that started in incel spaces is describing the exact thing you\u2019re talking about here and many femcels and incels *obsessively* work on themselves and curate their life hoping that somehow, through plastic surgery, hair transplants, work out routines, acting out the right personality, getting into the right career, and hyper management of their appearances they\u2019ll manage to be able to become desirable people. \n\nSadly that doesn\u2019t work for everyone, and what ends up happening is that the people that it works for leave those spaces while the people who did \u201call the right things\u201d end up right back where they started anyways to stew in their bitterness. \n\nPositing this as a personal responsibility issue is actually a bit dangerous, as it feeds the idea that if you just do all the right things you get the prize (another persons sexual and romantic attention) and in a way it still feeds the entitlement mentality that the more toxic members of those spaces have, because many of them *are doing those things*, and when women don\u2019t give them the prize they were expecting after they do those things they become furious because they feel as if they earned access to another individuals body.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2il1wm",
                    "author": "Longjumping-Leave-52",
                    "body": "The refusal to accept personal responsibility for your life's outcomes is a plague on society, and is definitely leading to \"soft\" generations.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ip6g4",
                    "author": "helmutye",
                    "body": "So you've included quite a lot in your post, but essentially you appear to be equating incels with racial minorities and other marginalized people as people who just need to take \"personal responsibility\".\n\n>'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\n>EG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nDo you see the problem here?\n\nMost incels are just lonely and frustrated dudes, no different than the generations of lonely and frustrated dudes who didn't have as much sex as they wanted. The only difference is that today's \"incels\" have a special name and a uniquely strong victimhood complex (mostly because right wingers are trying to use it as a way to make white men feel like they are being marginalized by women so as to direct them against actual marginalized people...like women, and black people, and many others).\n\nMeanwhile, black men *actually do* experience systemic racism and disadvantage. There doesn't seem to actually be a concerted effort by black men to claim they are being denied sex because of racism, so this comparison is purely hypothetical. But black men *do* experience a *ton* of other issues that are far more severe and qualitatively different than what most incels face. And it isn't a matter of \"personal responsibility\" -- society treats then measurably worse in countless ways, no matter what they do. The problem isn't them. It is the institutions that actively choose\n\nSo this entire framing is wrong -- you're effectively suggesting that, like incels, black men should just exercise \"personal responsibility\" rather than agitate for real systemic change to overturn the BS they currently face.\n\nAnd that's nonsense. Black men should absolutely agitate for systemic change to improve their conditions (and we should all support them)...and most incels should shut the fuck up. There's no comparison.\n\nAnd just to head off the possible response: there *are* a lot of lonely men who are genuinely socially disconnected and lonely and lost and in need of help. If they are white then their situation is still far better than the average black man, but they are still in a genuinely difficult situation and could benefit from help. \n\nHowever, these are *not* the same as the garden variety horny young dudes who are insisting they're \"victims\" because in a just world that hot girl would have *totally* banged them, and the various other girls who probably would bang them don't count. And in my experience the vast majority of people who call themselves \"incels\" these days are garden variety horny young dudes, not men who have any particularly serious or unique problem.\n\nThe men who truly do struggle with loneliness and disconnection may be involuntarily celibate...but the typically *don't* call themselves \"incels\" or identify as such.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2ivrjy",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "Oh no, not at all. That isn't what I meant to imply.\n\nMy meaning is that lack of personal responsibility is so accepted in modern society, that the reason incels are mostly rejected by society is that they are associated with white men.\n\nIf you were to remove that association, the incel concept would be much more palatable to modern society. Because it isn't the sense of entitlement that is found objectionable, it's that it's white men who are feeling entitled.\n\nThe black person statement was practically a hypothetical.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2ip6g4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2j0w9d",
                    "author": "Alexander_Lake",
                    "body": "I would say that real incels don't exist and that it's A: a targeted attack on straight antisocial men and B: a derogatory term designed by the progressive left to invalidate said men who don't agree with their OTT opinions on things like sexuality ie female hypersexuality and promiscuity.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2jejxw",
                    "author": "Hubris1998",
                    "body": "This is a terrible argument. It's bootstraps mentality. We could extrapolate this to black people and say \"Don't try to change the system. Just take personal responsability, stop committing crimes, and get a degree. I'm totally not trying to dismiss all the systemic inequalities of the past, like Jim Crow laws or urban renewal, that led to the current socioeconomic position of your communities\".\n\nNo. The system is fucked and it will only get worse. Loneliness is the next pandemic. The incel crisis stems from a combination of factors, many of them related to social atomisation (mostly caused by social media) and the awful unfettered capitalist nightmare we're currently trapped in (young men have less money and live with their parents for longer, meaning that they have less freedoms, opportunities and resources).",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2jg1nk",
                    "author": "Disastrous-Heat-7250",
                    "body": "You Americans give too much thought in the most fringe of communities and persons; no wonder even the rest of the developed world causally laughs at your problems\n\n\"Can't have sex? Tough luck bro, get your shit together\" how about leaving it at that and let what we snowflake out there figure it out on their own? Must you always dissect every social nonsense out there?",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2jp47o",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2jg1nk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2jof00",
                    "author": "mindbodyandseoul",
                    "body": "It's the ideology of the masses, welcome to democracy in action.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2jrb7p",
                    "author": "tinyhermione",
                    "body": "I think you are missing the distinction between people not wanting to be treated as subhuman because they are overweight (reasonable) and people thinking they are owed sex (not reasonable).\n\nPeople should demand to be treated with respect. And to just be allowed to be left alone. We can ask that of other people.\n\nWe can\u2019t ask of other people that they don\u2019t leave us alone and give us sex or friendship or any other type of connection.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2k2yui",
                    "author": "PrettiGood",
                    "body": "Unpopular opinion: A lot of these guys would have been cannon fodder, but since less man-to-man war happens they have the liberty to harass the rest of us. And there's less women to go around for them. (Lesbians, for example take out a certain percentage of women available to men)",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2kwp2j",
                    "author": "Affectionate-Past-26",
                    "body": "Yikes. Endorsement of male disposability? I don\u2019t think the solution involves killing human beings.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2k2yui"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2k7hrw",
                    "author": "Own-Satisfaction9921",
                    "body": "It\u2019s just that when you\u2019re describing how the incels should change themselves to become more attractive, it\u2019s as if you\u2019re assuming that every female is a 10/10 on that same scale. Would it not be more likely that for every 5/10 incel, there should also be a corresponding 5/10 female that they should technically have pretty good odds of attracting? Yet that doesn\u2019t seem to be the case. I\u2019d love your take on this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2keni2",
                    "author": "KangarooBackground25",
                    "body": "You are correct, great post A+",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2rdh3d",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-09-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2keni2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2lg0pi",
                    "author": "Active-Collection-73",
                    "body": "The concept that people these days lack \"personal responsibility\" is not new, and it's not interesting.  \nEvery generation whines uselessly about kids these days, and this gross misunderstanding about people who aren't you is the lynchpin of your entire idea.  \nIt's wrong, therefore so is everything that follows.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2lqajn",
                    "author": "Woodsy_The_Owl",
                    "body": "I think you\u2019re wrong because you\u2019re generalizing incels to be, basically just smelly neck beards, which is a big assumption to make. I mean there is prof everywhere that if you don\u2019t fit into a certain male archetype( mainstream interests, extroverted, loud, hyper-masculine,etc.) that you will struggle with dating, why is the assumption that all these people are just smelly and jobless?",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2lyfe0",
                    "author": "Eternal-defecator",
                    "body": "I partially agree with your point, however I agree that sexism is a result of inceldom, and not a root cause. Men become bitter and that bitter gradually presents itself as sexism.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2m0l3v",
                    "author": "JeVeuxCroire",
                    "body": "This is a case of humanizing vs dehumanizing. \n\nTo be clear, you will always have people who take things to ridiculous extremes, especially on the internet, but let's look at the core values in your examples. \n\n1. The fat-acceptance movement exists because society carries a stigma that (more or less) directly correlates to weight. The message of the movement is that someone's physical size does not decrease their value as people. The message isn't \"I shouldn't have to lose weight.\" It's \"My personhood shouldn't be diminished because of my weight.\" \n\n2. Somebody offended me. This depends on *why* it's offensive. If somebody makes mysogynistic or homophobic jokes or comments, I, as a lesbian, will be offended, because that joke/comment/whatever is de-valuing me - it is painting me as 'lesser' for things I cannot control. \n\n3. Something is triggering. First, let's define 'trigger' correctly. This is the internet, so it gets a lot of misuse. People have triggers because they have trauma. A trigger is a thing that incites a strong emotional response. Someone with a history of abuse might have a panic atttack because something triggers a memory, in a similar way that someone with PTSD might be set off by a car backfiring.  Yes, you have a personal responsibility to process your trauma and deal with things, but  that takes a lot of time and a lot of work. People aren't asking for triggers to cease to exist. They're asking for trigger warnings to be included so that they can choose not to engage with content that includes their trigger. It's an act of respect, giving people the knowledge they need to choose whether or not they want to expose themselves to those triggers. \n\nEvery example above is rooted in *giving* people more respect and consideration. \n\nIncel talking points *de-value* women, with a sprinkling of homophobia/transphobia and racism on top. Setting aside the morals of this, incel culture reduces women to their sexual value, and sometimes further pushes to lower their rights as people to benefit incels.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2m1uue",
                    "author": "AntonioSLodico",
                    "body": "There are a lot of comments here, so forgive me if this argument has already been made. \n\nI see three claims in one in your title argument that aren't necessarily accurate.\n\n1. *Inceldom is a loose group (or groups) of people primarily pushing to change society.* This was covered by other commenters who claimed that incels generally take other paths. Those paths include incels trying to accept the status quo that they cannot change and changing themselves individually. It doesn't seem like most or even the loudest voices of inceldom are pushing for social/systemic change, but that could be wrong.\n\n2. *Incels (and other groups that push for social/systemic change) do this because they believe that their issues are outside of their personal control.* This may be true about incels, I dont know enough about that world. That said, I don't think that holds across groups that push for social/systemic change. Many who fight for social/systemic change aren't currently directly affected by the issue, and many fix their issue on an individual flevel first. White people and Black freemen were the main advocates for abolition, for instance.   \n3. *The phenomenon of groups of people pushing to change is a function of our time and society.* Simply put, the phenomenon has always been around, but is more common in healthy democratic societies and larger, more complex societies/systems that have become more common as history has progressed. See my comment below for details on this.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2m1xdj",
                    "author": "AntonioSLodico",
                    "body": "  \n\\*When people see or experience a problem they do not accept, they make two decisions. First, should I try to help myself (individual solution), or fix the bigger issue (social/systemic solution)? Second, should I try to do this on my own (individual action) or should I do it with others (social/systemic action)? This gives rise to four types of potential solutions:  \n1. Individual action for individual solution - Personal problem solving. If it is successful and copied enough, it can create a societal solution.   \n2. 1. Social action for individual solution - Institutions helping individuals become better and helping to fix their problems. Charitable and self help groups (and more) do this.  \n3. Individual action for social solution - The powerful changing society as they see fit.   \n4. Social action for social solution - All the examples you gave and many more. It's basically how grassroots activism and advocacy work. It can also be how revolutions happen.   \n1 and 2 are focused on individuals becoming better and indiviually overcoming the issues that face them. 3 and 4 are focused on making whole societies better and overcoming issues. 2 and 3 are more top down, and 1 and 4 are more bottom up.   \n3 only works if you have a lot of power. It's hard for 4 to work in autocratic systems that don't like the masses telling them what to do, and often requires revolution. You usually see a lot more 3 in democratic societies and a lot more 4 in monarchies and dictatorships.   \nAlso, the bigger the system/society you are in, the more likely it is to encounter issues that are too big for you to tackle individually. You don't see a lot of 2 and 4 in small systems or societies. That comes with societal scale, which has been increasing since the bronze age.  \nSo, if by time, you mean the modern age, and if by our society, you mean democratic societies overall, sure, it's more pronounced now. But the commonness of this phenomenon is by no means limited to the 21st century global Northwest, and group efforts for systemic change have been happening across the world for a few millennia.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2m1uue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2m45l0",
                    "author": "Bernache_du_Canada",
                    "body": "The thing is though, men (even those who weren\u2019t \u201cpersonally developed\u201d) were able to easily get spouses 100 or 200 years ago, and even today in many developing countries, because women were financially dependent on men. So in some way it is because of societal structure.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2m577q",
                    "author": "Chicago_Synth_Nerd_",
                    "body": "I think it's the consequence of how the normalization of misogyny isn't acceptable in professional and public spaces but often tolerated in other spaces. The cognitive dissonance introduced by parents normalizing misogyny in the household and other spaces creates confusing environments for impressionable minds and I believe that as people attempt to reconcile those differences in order to preserve their world view, it leads to incel-like behavior. \n\nIncels didn't exist in the past because women were too frightened and lacked social support to hold them accountable or say no.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2sg7p7",
                    "author": "gabagoolcel",
                    "body": "the majority of misogynists do perfectly well with women, has literally nothing to do with inceldom.",
                    "date": "2023-09-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2m577q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2m9ckd",
                    "author": "AntonioSLodico",
                    "body": "I commented separately about your base argument, but here is my take on the conclusion. Sorry if it's been said before.  \n\n\nThe issue most have with incels is slightly different than people seeing it as those with the most privilege complaining that things arent fair for themselves. Its more about three things:  \n\n\n1. Incels haven't yet successfully etablished that things are unfair to them as a group, or that their root cause analysis is accurate. Broader support for any social movement an systemic solution generally requires this, so only the folks who they convince of this will have any sympathy for them. Patriarchy Hurts Men Too focused groups and initiatives have successfully opend the door to discussions about how our society can be unfair to men, like the stigma around men crying. \n2. Incel solutions are often seen as focusing on limiting the rights and freedoms of others. It's not that they are proposing systemic changes. An individual incel expressing support for an individual solution for themself that would infringe on the rights or freedoms of one woman is still generally met with contempt. \n3. Their solutions tend to revolve around making social changes that restrict those who are considered to have less privilege than themselves. If they proposed cultural changes (like film representation) with the desired outcome of making tall guys less attractive and short guys more attractive, there wouldn't be a lot of pushback. Or if they proposed a solution that wanted women to have more/equal rights, there wouldn't be much pushback.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2md9qm",
                    "author": "WhoStoleMyFriends",
                    "body": "Improving oneself does not entitle one to have consensual non-transactional sex with another person.  The response of improvement to an incel attitude perpetuates the incel attitude and marginalizes women as the reward for superficial self-improvement.  The other examples don\u2019t treat other people as objects but are about the way an individual can participate in the culture as an individual and the relationship between the means (personal responsibility) and the end involves only their actions.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2mevdj",
                    "author": "Maduin1986",
                    "body": "That's how American society works. Every day I'm happy to be born and to live in a middle European country where we don't have that.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2sdokx",
                    "author": "gabagoolcel",
                    "body": "lol wat",
                    "date": "2023-09-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2mevdj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2mgt3v",
                    "author": "TheEdExperience",
                    "body": "Doesn\u2019t this assume there hasn\u2019t been a similar decline in the quality of women?  If anything obesity rates have gone up equally.\n\nRatio of male to female in society is roughly 50:50.  Either both sexes need to improve or both need to lower their standards.  Really no reason for anyone to be an incel unless your willing to admit that some percentage of the population should be cut off from a fundamental human experience.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2mvz5s",
                    "author": "RandomRecorder753",
                    "body": ">'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nSure you could theoretically also write that as a gay man and it would still express some toxic fatalism as well as a toxic ideal of sex, but not sexism (as only one sex is involved and they can't blame all men... though they probably can still blame anybody but themselves so maybe they can even be auto-sexist...)  \n\nAlso what they lack isn't sex. Seriously they could jerk off and touch themselves and get toys or whatnot and they would have the same effect. Now is that the same as having sex? No. But it's likely the same experience that they would have if they slept with another person having that mindset. Because what they are interested in isn't the other person but some kind of fetish of sex, so if the other person plays no role as a person and is just an object why not skip that part and go straight to the toy? At least you're not hurting another person.  \n\nSo if the other person plays no other role than being conquered and exploited then that is pretty shitty regardless of sex, but apparently incels have not just adopted that kind of bullshit but grown it into an ideology and worldview and as it stands the role of women in that is majorly sexist. So you can't simply remove the sexism if that is a major part of that. But even if you could it would still be toxic and dehumanizing. \n\nAnd the problem would not be personal responsibility, like even if they would get basic hygiene, spend some time with other people, not start a conversation by calling the other person a slut if things don't turn to sex in the first 5 minutes (but appreciate that intimacy both being naked and opening up to someone is a risk and it might take some time to develop trust and be comfortable around each other) and potentially be lucky at least some of the time (lots of incels are not as hideous as they see themselves) then it would still be their inceldom and their sexism that could get in the way of making that a pleasant experience.         \n\nLike these hategroups spend their time destroying each other's self-esteem to the point where they think their only realistic chance is faking it and there's no shortage of scammers and con artists telling them how to get sex and which objectify women. So even if they do the bare minimum of being viable and find someone not running away, their self-esteem is still down, they will likely apply toxic manipulation tactics and they will still have the creeping afterthought that they weren't chosen because the other person actually liked them enough to give them a chance (actually possible), but because they are stupid and fall for the manipulation and that is not a healthy foundation for anything (in the worst case that's already criminally abusive) and whatever sex they might have is likely more or less masturbation with another person. So they will bounce back in despair and buy the next book of that con artist. Ka-ching!\n\nAnd if they aren't milked for cash by scammers, they try to repair their wounded ego (which again they collectively wound themselves in a circle jerk of misery) by asserting their dominant manliness which in the absence of actual confidence and self-esteem comes down to violence, racism, misogyny and other forms of picking a target for bullying to not feel so worthless. Which ironically means that they've pretty much hit rock bottom with respect to being a decent human being and being a cynical piece of shit that views and treats those who he wants to be with with contempt is likely not going to be very attractive. So a perfect vicious cycle. Seriously it's normal to be an angsty teen and have the feeling that one is all alone and no one understands how one is feeling, but inceldom is not an answer. It makes the incel miserable and is an active threat to other people. \n\nAlso with respect to your other twisted logic:\n \n >- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\nDepends on what your problem is. Like is your weight a problem for yourself or are you comfortable with it but other people pick upon you for it? In the latter case it actually is the problem. Like if you remove all other people from that image your weight would not be the problem it's being surrounded by assholes. Though if you don't like your weight and have it be a problem in everyday life then hitting a gym or a doctor might be the better option. With respect to accomodation by others it kinda depends like they want your money so they need to provide some service and if you replace weight with a more obvious handicap you might be in need of that and it actually is outside of your personal ability, and responsibility requires ability.             \n\n>- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\nDepends on what was said. Like if the other person said kill all members of minority X that you are a part of then yes that person should definitely change... And if you are triggered that is again outside of your ability and so outside of your responsibility how you react to that is a different question though and is usually the responsibility of both people not just one       \n\n>- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\nDepends on whether you are able to I mean a trigger literally refers to something like pulling a trigger so a minor event starting an explosive outburst and similar to explosions that is usually hardly controllable. Also usually the problem is that you don't know what triggers or can't control it anyway so knowing that and still doing it might actually be an asshole move on your end rather than a responsibility of that person. Though it might be possible that even after an outburst you may take a moment to apologize or explain the situation. So as with all of these it depends on whether you can do something whether it's just bad luck or whether either or both sides suck.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2nad2k",
                    "author": "CosmicLovepats",
                    "body": "I think incels aren't entirely wrong in their predicament being caused (or at least exacerbated) by things totally outside their control. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nThey go on a lot about how 1950s society is what we need to RETVRN to, when men were men and women were women (and also couldn't open their own bank accounts) and how it's feminism and liberalism and modern woke whatever that's putting them in this predicament. \n\nThat's all bull, sure, but they're not wrong that society *has* changed and the traditional male role people were historically promised/expected to grow into has changed significantly. They had no control over that. And because men aren't supposed to have feelings they basically get told \"suck it up\" if anyone ever bothers to acknowledge that there's a bunch of men who are confused about their role in society and don't feel like they have a good understanding of how to be what they think they're supposed to be. \n\nFeminism has rocked the boat, made things better for women (and that's good, fyi) and in the increasing isolation and atomization of modern society, we've got a bunch of young men who are confused, unsure, and don't have the words or the relationships to be able to ask about it. You're a man. You're not supposed to be weak and womanly and worried. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nAdd to that that there are very real entities out there who have identified a bunch of directionless young men who feel isolated as prey to be grifted, mobilized, recruited or all of above. They have an interest in exacerbating things to use this as a recruitment pipeline.\n\nSociety's interest in talking about women's issues (which also need to be championed, and- let's be real- are probably a little more urgent, socially) means that talking about men's issues is- especially with the kind of people identified with talking \"men's rights\" or \"men's issues\"! -relegated to the backburner, barely touched on, further remanding them to the grifter/predator pipeline. It's hard to even *mention* men's issues without drumming up images of MRAs or incels- and that image just further solidifies them as the ones who are even willing to acknowledge these things. And they have shitty answers to these issues. Their answers will never be able to help you. But that doesn't matter when they're the *only ones who will even acknowledge that answers are needed*. \n\n&#x200B;\n\nNow, are they actually forced into this? mostly no. It's a little harder today than it used to be, probably, but while that is Bad and something we as society should maybe Work On, everyone's still gotta do what they can with their situation. Most people could exert a little more effort, get out there, socialize- it's harder these days than it used to be, but it can still be done with effort and practice- and get over it. They aren't *doomed* to inceldom though the grifters preying on them are definitely incentivized to convince them they are. Social skills are your birthright as a human. Everyone can do it. You just gotta put in the hours. (There will of course be exceptions. I apologize if you were born mute and blind. Everyone else though.)\n\n&#x200B;\n\n&#x200B;\n\nI don't think your other examples are that compelling, tbh. Like, I'm sure there are isolated examples but I don't think anyone off the internet takes \"I shouldn't have to lose weight\" seriously. There's an effort to reduce the focus on stick-thin beauty models, admit that there are other body shapes (not necessarily fat, just things other than hourglass figures). *Representation*. Fat is still unhealthy according to most medical professionals, last I checked. And last I heard, 'plus size' models were still having regular model's faces shooped over their bodies. Much progressive such positivity.\n\nTrigger, offense? Those seem to be the same things and also, again, something I've never encountered outside of far corners of the internet where they're held up in effigy as something to be mad at, their significance blown entirely out of proportion. I think my rebuttal to this is \"touch grass\"; I really don't think it's as big of a deal in real life as you seem to suggest it is.",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2o49bk",
                    "author": "TAMILIANPSYCHO",
                    "body": ">The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nCivil rights laws btfo through facts and logic\n\n>Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\nIncels don't particularly expect society to change, the culture is centered around being \"blackpilled\" and \"ropefuel\", essentially their thesis is that given their lack of genetic value they might as well kill themselves because society and women will never give them a chance. As such they lash out a lot but few actually want to change anything nor will. \n\nBut in any case the premise that it's solely a lack of personal improvement that causes these struggles isn't true when even well above average men in looks and status struggle to have healthy, life-long relationships. A common refrain with them is \"If even Will Smith couldn't keep a woman true to him then what chance do I have in this society?\"",
                    "date": "2023-09-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2qmo0i",
                    "author": "CoontownER101",
                    "body": "Quite a few incel \"trucels\" have unchangeable genetic traits.\n\nMany of them think they are entitled to sex. Others know they are not (and hence dream of rape and sex bots).\n\nMen as a whole are failing due to modern society.",
                    "date": "2023-09-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2tvydf",
                    "author": "Public_Platform_3475",
                    "body": "i get what you\u2019re saying but some of the examples don\u2019t actually follow the theme you\u2019ve tried to set up with incel\u2019s thought process.",
                    "date": "2023-09-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2tvyun",
                    "author": "Public_Platform_3475",
                    "body": "or the association",
                    "date": "2023-09-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k2tvydf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k2tzjwi",
                    "author": "DethB4DsHnr13",
                    "body": "Lack of personal responsibility is born from never having any sense of responsibility taught to them. If we're taught if we don't work we don't eat, then we work. If taught respect is earned not just given them they learn respect. If we give in and let them get away with bad behavior even once that's one time too much. Not abuse but discipline is missing from the family, shoot half the family is missing anymore. Proper raising is a big factor",
                    "date": "2023-09-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k33t54z",
                    "author": "Fastenedhotdog55",
                    "body": "It is. Not everyone of Eva AI virtual dating engine userbase is a tech geek who likes LLMs, someone find their single chance of being not alone in a virtual gf chatbot. And it's also a mark of our times.",
                    "date": "2023-10-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k37xbm7",
                    "author": "ReflectionSalt6908",
                    "body": "Wow, I hate to be somewhat negative here, but these two paragraphs kind of blew my mind. *\"EG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.*  \n*Thus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\"*\n\nI am not sure I fully understand the point you were trying to make. It looks like you assume that the white priviledged class is guilty of extreme bigotry. This is, of course, possible, but I have not experienced anyone guilty of it in this context.\n\nThe basic postulation is that not being able to have sex is unfair. You are therefore quite right that those incel people should look inward not outward and blame society, blacks, whits, gays, whatever their particular bias things is the cause of their own unattractiveness.",
                    "date": "2023-10-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4sf6yc",
                    "author": "Technical-Gap768",
                    "body": "You should have provided numbers to back any of this up. Unfortunately, the cels have a great deal of online dating statistics from reputable sources they can point to bolster their worldview.",
                    "date": "2023-10-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4ul2o1",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "I don't disagree with them that women have it easier than men on dating apps in the context of hookups or the first few dates.\n\nI do disagree with them that this means they should just give up and complain about it in an echo chamber rather than putting in work to overcome the challenge.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4sf6yc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8umrbf",
                    "author": "Kickassasarus1",
                    "body": "The fact that asking for help to get out of inceldom only makes the problem worse.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "katspns",
                    "author": "Confident-Context354",
                    "body": "What a cope. Spend Years grinding so you can get a Roastie who divorces for half after a kid or 2. And on top of that; Soycieties that want White Men (especially) to die in stupid shit. Send the Roasties and Trannies instead!",
                    "date": "2023-11-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "16tscm2",
                    "author": "ZeusThunder369",
                    "body": "As opposed to being directly caused by various forms of sexism. Sexism is obviously present in incel communities, but the state of inceldom would still exist absent sexism.\n\nThe basic logic:\n\n'I want to have sex with people' --> 'I have not been able to have sex with people' --> 'This is because of various factors outside of my control' --> 'Society should change because this is unfair'\n\nIn this case, the change incels would like to have happen is the gender they are attracted to (usually women) should change their standards so that the incels could have sex.\n\n\\------\n\nThis logic is consistent with other aspects of our society as well:\n\n\\- 'I should not have to lose weight, instead society should change their standards of beauty' (and also airlines should increase the size of their seats to accommodate me so I'm more comfortable)\n\n\\- 'Something someone said offended me, and therefore it is bad. Rather than just not consume the content anymore, the person should change'\n\n\\- 'I was triggered by something someone said. Anything that triggers me is bad. Rather than manage my emotions, the trigger should no longer exist.'\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\------\n\nFinally, I think while there would certainly still be critics, if the issue of incels being associated with a protected class were removed, it would be much more acceptable in mainstream society.\n\nEG - 'White women are often scared of black men for no reason, thus it is unfairly difficult as a black man to establish romantic relationships'. The logic is the same, including the sense that the black man is \"owed\" romantic relationships common in inceldom, but this is much more palatable to modern society than incel culture is.\n\nThus, it isn't the base logic and reasoning society finds so distasteful; Rather it's the association with white men. A class that is seen as having the most privilege complaining that things aren't fair isn't going to win over a lot of people.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n\\--------\n\nThings that would likely change my view:\n\n\\- Explain how my understanding of incel culture is completely wrong\n\n\\- Explain how there is no valid relationship between incels lack of personal responsibility and the examples I listed; Besides claiming one is less moral/acceptable than the other. Explaining how the examples can be rationalized or are more just wouldn't really address the main point.",
                    "date": "2023-09-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I think inceldom is simply an extension of our society's current relationship with personal responsibility",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/16tscm2/cmv_i_think_inceldom_is_simply_an_extension_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kc4uii4",
                    "author": "frank_east",
                    "body": "I think its an over correction of behavior from women finally breaking free independently. They now get to chose who they actually want to be with. They get to chose without pressure. However its an overcorrection in the fact that people act out when they finally get freedom. \n\nThe standards are way too high. There are many normal non misog incels that try to date but get pushed out because women now have the same jobs, the same pay, the same opportunities which is great. However I've noticed women on here that are combative that don't want to talk about this issue reasonably at all from the get go that say things like \"ALL men just need to raise the bar or never date stay out the gene pool\" Are absolutely the ones that SAY they wouldn't mind a 50/50 partnership but would disrespect their man if they went into a 50/50 split like that. Its a combo of women becoming equal to men while simultaneously subconsciously expecting gender norms. \n\nThis obv isn't the main factor its just one of them but no person on reddit will discuss this truthfully at all, theyll gaslight into making you see their twitter diet left version of reality. Theres a reason you can just about assume a redditors leanings and opinions before you even get a reply.",
                    "date": "2023-12-05",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "16tscm2"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "173vvql",
                "author": "bobdylan401",
                "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                "date": "2023-10-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k45ipom",
                "author": "AmongTheElect",
                "body": "What country or interest group *isn't* religious, really? Even if not in the church-sense, religious in terms of faith in a way things ought to be and how people should behave?\n\nAnd \"extremist\" is a wildly subjective term and these days is pretty well applied to everything, largely to interests we don't agree with. There is no way to distinguish \"extremist\" from \"rational\" if not by our own religious standards which themselves would be judged \"extreme\" by someone else's standards.",
                "date": "2023-10-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "173vvql"
            },
            {
                "id": "k45jba9",
                "author": "bobdylan401",
                "body": "\u0394 Thats an interesting philosphical argument. Couldn't any group that is religious become violent religious extremists given enough power through weapons.\n\nYou would think though there could be a vetting process where before the group is given weapons they have to at least support or promise to enact a secular government. But theres no way to know if that group would be true to their word. But if they reneg then at least that could block future weapon sales.",
                "date": "2023-10-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k45ipom"
            },
            {
                "id": "k45jhfq",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/AmongTheElect ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/AmongTheElect)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-09",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k45jba9"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45d48r",
                    "author": "kjjwang",
                    "body": "I'm not sure if the US has ever claimed giving arms is a humanitarian program. Usually the two reasons are to either make money, or to arm groups who align with our goals. If you only sell to secular groups, then you really limit the two goals stated above.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45dv6s",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "The vast majority of boomers truly believe that we send arms and go into other countries for humanitarian reasons, and the adverse side effects are unfortunate but that the intentions are good.\n\n I'm interested in a sort of law like this to attract boomers to a solution to make the reality fit more into their intentions. Just to make the world a bit better of a place. \n\nIt's not THE solution, I agree with you fundamentally, but if we could all agree on a law that would help make the world a better place, then I don't see the harm.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k45d48r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45dinr",
                    "author": "SeparateNewspaper810",
                    "body": "The point of weapons dealing isn\u2019t to make peace, it\u2019s to make war",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45e76m",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I fundamentally agree with you which I alluded to in my last sentence. But the vast majority of boomers truly believe that we intervene and sell arms for good humanitarian intentions.\n\nI just wonder if we could bridge the foundational difference between generations by implementing a law such as this to try to reduce harm, whatever the intentions may truly be.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k45dinr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45ff3h",
                    "author": "Cleopatra-Ail",
                    "body": "Athiests are becoming religious extremists. They think their view of material reality as fundamental is 100% correct and are hostile toward anyone who thinks differently. \n\nAthiesm is a religion that teaches material reality is fundamental.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45gxfu",
                    "author": "eggs-benedryl",
                    "body": ">Athiests are becoming religious extremists  \n>  \n>and are hostile toward anyone who thinks differently.\n\ncare to explain how athiests compare to jihadists?",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k45ff3h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45fkb3",
                    "author": "SpezEatLead",
                    "body": "selling weapons is fundamentally about power projection. by being the source of weapons for these groups, we create a significant positive relationship with them, thus protecting our own interests as a nation. the alternative being someone like china or iran sells those groups weapons, putting them in a position to be significantly more hostile to american interests.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45rwxx",
                    "author": "birdmanbox",
                    "body": "Can you elaborate on what you mean by intervention in your third paragraph? For instance with Iraq, are you talking about selling weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, or direct intervention in 1991? Or direct intervention in 2003?",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k45s1hf",
                    "author": "aDrunkWithAgun",
                    "body": "True or not how would you enforce this? If one country refuses to sell arms to a group then some other country will step up and fill that void.\n\nEven if it were globally illegal you would have people selling them on the black market just like drugs.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k46016r",
                    "author": "ulsterloyalistfurry",
                    "body": "I'm an isolationist and it's not the job of the US to be world police in the first place. My tax dollars shouldn't be wasted on sectarian garbage.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k464kys",
                    "author": "darkmatter8879",
                    "body": ">A perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class,\n\nSyria were not truly a secular country, only on the surface, all the truly influential people in the military and the government are from the same sect as Assad and they are a minority, so that didn't happen by coincidence",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k46h6xo",
                    "author": "luigijerk",
                    "body": "Do you think mass murder or genocide is only committed by religious extremists? The issue is with extremists, religious or not.\n\nThe Soviet Union under Stalin killed millions and was atheist. The CCP is atheist and is currently commiting genocide on the Uyghurs. Mussolini allied with Hitler and was an atheist.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k48vwpb",
                    "author": "SalamanderOk2137",
                    "body": "> Saudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century\n\nNot only did Saudi Arabia not commit the worst genocides in our century. It has not committed any at all. Who is being genocided?\n\nIf you're referring specifically to the Yemen war. Then you need to be aware of the following:\n  1) It was a civil war before Saudi Arabia got there and after they left.  \n  2) There was no large scale ground invasion. Saudi Arabia's involvement was strictly support to the Yemen legitimate government and air strike.  \n  3) Saudi Arabia entered Yemen with UN approval and with a coalition, and with US support. All those involved parties make it impossible for some secret genocide to be happening.  \n  4) The total casualties, on all sides, from all causes, in the conflict over the past 10 years is 400k. This puts it in not even the top 10 conflicts this century, let alone classifying it as a genocide.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "173vvql",
                    "author": "bobdylan401",
                    "body": "I think that dealing weapons to religious extremists goes directly against our humanitarian stated intentions of giving arms, which is usually around \"spreading democracy.\"\n\nA perfect example of this was Syria, which was secular, had a booming middle class, and state of the art nationalized college and healthcare. The people there/ the Arab spring movement in Syria genuinely wanted a natural evolution to democracy through peaceful protest, but over 60% of the rebels we armed were violent religious extremists who were ideologically aligned with Isis. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/20/460463173/60-percent-of-syrian-rebels-share-islamic-state-ideology-think-tank-finds)\n\nIran, Iraq and Libya all were secular or at least much more secular before the US intervened. Syria would have been the next to be overtaken by Sharia law, and it still could be.\n\nAlso, probably the clearest example of this is Israel, where they mistake our arms deals and the worlds acceptance of them as god given states' rights. There are many videos of Zionist CHILDREN chanting \"death to all Arabs.\" Now I can understand the argument that Iran would fund and give weapons to HAMAS but in such a scenario as the world police force and \"peacemakers\" we should be spending our resources stopping that from happening, rather than just funding the other side in a race to see who can bomb the most people first. As Israel is thinking that their power of their bombs comes from God, when it is really coming from weapon manufacturers, and the world allowing this type of arms dealing to take place.\n\nSaudi Arabia has committed the worst genocides in our century, and one of Trumps wildest moments was showing a recycling looking infographic with red arrows pointing from a pile of guns, to Saudi Arabia, to a pile of money, to the US. And while this is crude and reductionist, it is also undeniable that our current Secretary of Defense, the chief policy position of the DoD was plucked directly off the Raytheon Executive board. So there's more truth to that logic then fiction.",
                    "date": "2023-10-09",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Weapons Dealing should be strictly secular (not allowed to be given to religious extremists)",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/173vvql/cmv_weapons_dealing_should_be_strictly_secular/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4binkj",
                    "author": "Maestro_Primus",
                    "body": "Is the purpose of selling weapons to make money and keep our allies strong?  If we have determined they are our allies, why would we not give them access to better weapons based on their religious affiliation?  If they are too dangerous to give weapons to, why are they our allies?",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "173vvql"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "174g1le",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k491cqf",
                "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                "body": "All arguments about a certain usage of a certain word are ridiculous because they suggest a kind of epistemological violence that just doesn't actually exist or happen. Like, with the yellow star badges example, do you *really* think that those gun owners actually had any effect, at all, in any measurable material way, on any person's understanding of the holocaust? No. It's absurd. People are not huge idiots, they're not going to see gun owners being whiners appropriating holocaust imagery and suddenly forget that the holocaust was bad.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "174g1le"
            },
            {
                "id": "k4944bx",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Like, with the yellow star badges example, do you *really* think that those gun owners actually had any effect, at all, in any measurable material way, on any person's understanding of the holocaust? No. It's absurd. People are not huge idiots, they're not going to see gun owners being whiners appropriating holocaust imagery and suddenly forget that the holocaust was bad. Either they're just not that familiar with the holocaust - in which case there can be no epistemological effect on collective understanding of the holocaust, because that person in question didn't understand the holocaust - or they're just going to already know that the holocaust was a lot worse than having your guns taken away is. So no real effect is possible\n\n!delta\n\nI shouldn't assume that misuse of the word \"slavery\" or the yellow star badge would cheapen historical atrocities, because while people can get offended by this, in the end, hardly anyone will come out of this thinking \"slavery/holocaust wasn't that bad\".",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k491cqf"
            },
            {
                "id": "k4946gg",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MercurianAspirations ([314\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MercurianAspirations)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k4944bx"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k491nog",
                    "author": "Beginning_Impress_99",
                    "body": "Can we know your definition of 'slavery' then? \n\nYou can point out the differences between wage slavery and extreme forms of holocaust slavery / chattel slavery --- but that does not mean that wage slavery isnt slavery.\n\nFor example, I can point out the difference between 'red colour' and 'yellow colour' (wavelengths etc) --- that does not mean that red colour isnt actually colour.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4948g6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Can we know your definition of 'slavery' then?\n\nSimilar to that of Britannica - which is \"*Slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.*\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k491nog"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k492r7l",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "It's illusion that you have freedom to quit your job.\n\nSur you can but what is alternative? Starvation and death. It's not honestly a free choice.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k494cd2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Sur you can but what is alternative? Starvation and death. It's not honestly a free choice.\n\nExactly, and that's why I mentioned in the post details \"*To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.*\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k492r7l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4930zb",
                    "author": "ZARAeyewear",
                    "body": "I think slaves had it even better back then, they at least got a home and food with work...",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k494eux",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If having to accept the possibility of being whipped, raped or killed is a fair deal in your eyes, then sure.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4930zb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k493ogb",
                    "author": "perfectVoidler",
                    "body": ">You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n\nit is not a financial risk tho. In america it is an existential risk. If you don't work you die. You are forced to work by the system. You literally don't have the freedom to not work. Therefore it is called slavery. \n\nWage slavery is not used for stagnated wages. It is used for people working 3 jobs and still living at the minimum.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4959pb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">it is not a financial risk tho. In america it is an existential risk. If you don't work you die. You are forced to work by the system. You literally don't have the freedom to not work. Therefore it is called slavery.\n\nThis is why I mentioned in the post details that we should be talking more about the lack of a social safety net and doing what it takes to fix that problem.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k493ogb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k493wo7",
                    "author": "GabuEx",
                    "body": "\"You have rights\" isn't an argument against calling something slavery.  There are historical forms of slavery in which the slaves had rights.  Not many, obviously, but they had them.  You couldn't just kill a slave, for example.\n\nThe key point that makes something slavery is that working is not optional.  There will be serious and immediate consequences if you do not work.  By that standard, it is entirely reasonable to talk about wage slavery as slavery.  For someone living paycheck to paycheck, a single missed paycheck might mean they no longer can pay their bills.  Not being able to pay their bills might mean they lose their home.  They must work, or face immediate, serious consequences.\n\nSure, you can say \"get a better job\", but how?  If you're working two jobs just to make ends meet, you're going to be dead tired and you won't have the spoons to bother in the short periods of time between work to actually go job hunting seriously - and that's assuming there even is a better job out there. Get an education?  Again, how?  Where does the money or the time come from?\n\nThe whole point of talking about wage slavery is to make the point that this isn't something people just choose for themselves because they're lazy or whatever.  They're stuck in a position where they either work or they starve and become homeless, and they have little to no hope of every having a better lot in life.  That sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k495pws",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The key point that makes something slavery is that working is not optional, and that there will be serious and immediate consequences if you do not work.  By that standard, it is entirely reasonable to talk about wage slavery as slavery.  For someone living paycheck to paycheck, a single missed paycheck might mean they no longer can pay their bills.  Not being able to pay their bills might mean they lose their home.  They must work, or face immediate, serious consequences.  \n>  \n>Sure, you can say \"get a better job\", but how?  If you're working two jobs just to make ends meet, you're going to be dead tired and you won't have the spoons to bother in the short periods of time between work to actually go job hunting seriously - and that's assuming there even is a better job out there. Get an education?  Again, how?  Where does the money or the time come from?\n\nI do not place the blame on the workers or \"wage slaves\". I put the blame on an inadequate social safety net, and in the post details, I mention that we should be talking about that instead and doing something to fix that.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k493wo7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k49seb8",
                    "author": "BeefcakeWellington",
                    "body": "So here's what I don't understand: you have outlined all the ways in which wage slavery isn't slavery at all, and yet your position is we shouldn't use it because it's cheap and slavery, not because IT ISN'T SLAVERY. Isn't that the better and more complete argument? It's a voluntary exchange. It's literally the opposite of slavery, (*Slavery being the noun in the adjective noun combo of wage slavery.*)",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k49uzgf",
                    "author": "TarotAngels",
                    "body": "For most of human history there has not been wages, period. Most people \u201cworked\u201d for their families or communities in exchange for being part of that family or community. So paid or unpaid is not the differentiator between slavery and working. \n\nSlavery has to do with the amount of choice you have. Nobody has to be *physically* preventing you from working somewhere else for it to be slavery. In fact, economic suppression is much easier and less resource intensive for oppressors to pull off.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4dcv0p",
                    "author": "romantic_gestalt",
                    "body": "Slavery is slavery and all of it needs to be called out. Wage slavery is just slavery lite(tm). It's not as easy to ignore slavery when you realize you've been enslaved as well. In unity, it's easier to rebel.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4drc26",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": "Not all slavery involves chattel slaves who can be bought and sold. All slavery is bad. Not all forms of slavery are equally horrible.\n\nWhen wages are so low and the pain for not having a wage is so great that people cannot meaningfully choose to leave their jobs or better themselves, wage slavery is an appropriate term.",
                    "date": "2023-10-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4ill4j",
                    "author": "robotmonkeyshark",
                    "body": "You can quit your job as a slave, albeit at physical risk to yourself, and there is plenty of more literal slavery that is outside the scope of the law in places around the world. \n\nSlaveowners can say you have been traded, but if you refuse to work for either of them, paperwork saying you have been traded doesn't mean much. \n\nThere are places where slaves still have some rights as well. \n\nLet's say you are born in a poor village.  The only work that pays enough to keep from starving to death is the local mine owner.  He pays you a wage, but he also owns all the land and all the businesses around.  so you can work for money, but unless you want to starve, you are going to spend that money at his stores to buy food.  feel free to leave, but its not like there is an adjacent village paying more for a job that you have enough skill to perform.  basically you can work there for the rest of your life or you can leave and likely die after a couple days of wandering.  Are you a slave in this situation or are you a voluntary employee?\n\nNow obviously there is a spectrum here.  If someone in the US has 100k in the bank, marketable skills, and is just unhappy with their current job, its quite a stretch to say they are a wage slave, but lets say instead you are a in the US, you had a bad upbringing and were extremely poor and ended up associating with the wrong people to get by.  At 18 you were arrested due to your association with a drug dealer and people falsely accused you of crimes you didn't commit, but being uneducated and broke and with an overworked and underpaid defense attorney who warned you that losing this case could land you up to 20 years in prison, but by cutting a deal, you get a non-violent felony conviction and just 1 year in prison.  So you take it.  You manage to finally find some job that is okay with you being a felon, but good luck just leaving and wandering into a new town and finding someone willing to hire a felon.  Are you a slave at this point, or are you still not allowed to use that term?",
                    "date": "2023-10-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "174g1le",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k493dgt",
                "author": "Redrolum",
                "body": "Your entire argument is Political Correctness, and i think it has the usual tone deafness to actual slavery, even hypocritical amounts of tone deafness like what you're accusing others of.\n\nFrom the wiki article you linked:\n\n>Before the American Civil War, Southern defenders of keeping African Americans in slavery invoked the concept of wage slavery to favourably compare the condition of their slaves to workers in the North.[17][18] The United States abolished most forms of slavery after the Civil War...\n\nWait, what? What was that last sentence?\n\n>abolished most forms of slavery \n\nWait a minute! What is this? What do they mean by \"most\"? Does that mean slavery is alive and well in the good 'ol USA? The freedom leaders for the entire world? The worlds police?\n\nStatista for 2023:\n\n>The United States is home to the second largest number of prisoners worldwide, only beaten by China. Roughly 1.68 million people were incarcerated in the U.S. in 2023. In China, the estimated prison population totaled to 1.69 million people that year.\n\nWhat does their glorious constitution say again?\n\n>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.\n\nSo USA has a slave population of 1.68 million currently, so are we cheapening their suffering considering they're actual slaves?\n\nWell, what's the pettiest way anyone has been incarcerated for life? Maybe smoking weed? Smoke some grass and now you're a slave for life.\n\nWhy do they smoke weed? To deal with the stress, maybe? Perhaps even the stress of living in a destitute system where they're paid small wages.\n\nAt the same time with the broken mental health and justice and medical system aren't most middle classers (a disappearing demographic) just a few paychecks away from being homeless and needing to steal to feed their family?\n\nMy argument is that most of everyone really is just a few skipped meals or paychecks away from becoming an actual constitutionally mandated slave.\n\nOP linked to America so should be a valid view change.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "174g1le"
            },
            {
                "id": "k4955xa",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">My argument is that most of everyone really is just a few skipped meals or paychecks away from becoming an actual constitutionally mandated slave, and making \"worth\" of their suffering means at least mentioning the two words \"Abolition Amendment.\" It costs almost no effort to at least say those two little words.  \n>  \n>OP linked to America so should be a valid view change and none of you are as far away from becoming a slave as you want to imagine. One bad day or if you get drunk and get angry and make a mistake and you're now an actual slave who will be forced to slave away making license plates, picking up trash beside the road and denied phone calls and tooth paste for reasonable costs.  \n>  \n>You can be thrown in jail if your lawyer does inside trading outside your knowledge or if a cop hates and frames you there is very little you can do. There are widely publicized cases like this and no one can give them justice.  \n>  \n>These slaves exist in your state. Not just in Guantanamo Bay but possibly within miles of where you live. Let's not cheapen their suffering by forgetting how close any American just trying to collect their wages is to falling into slavery.\n\n!delta\n\nI'm not American. This post was inspired by a video on Caribbean slavery, which is similar to American slavery in terms of brutality. That being said, you mentioning these instances of modern slavery doesn't cheapen the suffering of historical slaves, so therefore the term \"wage slavery\" shouldn't either.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k493dgt"
            },
            {
                "id": "k49573z",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Redrolum ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Redrolum)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k4955xa"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k491nog",
                    "author": "Beginning_Impress_99",
                    "body": "Can we know your definition of 'slavery' then? \n\nYou can point out the differences between wage slavery and extreme forms of holocaust slavery / chattel slavery --- but that does not mean that wage slavery isnt slavery.\n\nFor example, I can point out the difference between 'red colour' and 'yellow colour' (wavelengths etc) --- that does not mean that red colour isnt actually colour.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4948g6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Can we know your definition of 'slavery' then?\n\nSimilar to that of Britannica - which is \"*Slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.*\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k491nog"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k492r7l",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "It's illusion that you have freedom to quit your job.\n\nSur you can but what is alternative? Starvation and death. It's not honestly a free choice.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k494cd2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Sur you can but what is alternative? Starvation and death. It's not honestly a free choice.\n\nExactly, and that's why I mentioned in the post details \"*To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.*\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k492r7l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4930zb",
                    "author": "ZARAeyewear",
                    "body": "I think slaves had it even better back then, they at least got a home and food with work...",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k494eux",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If having to accept the possibility of being whipped, raped or killed is a fair deal in your eyes, then sure.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4930zb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k493ogb",
                    "author": "perfectVoidler",
                    "body": ">You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n\nit is not a financial risk tho. In america it is an existential risk. If you don't work you die. You are forced to work by the system. You literally don't have the freedom to not work. Therefore it is called slavery. \n\nWage slavery is not used for stagnated wages. It is used for people working 3 jobs and still living at the minimum.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4959pb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">it is not a financial risk tho. In america it is an existential risk. If you don't work you die. You are forced to work by the system. You literally don't have the freedom to not work. Therefore it is called slavery.\n\nThis is why I mentioned in the post details that we should be talking more about the lack of a social safety net and doing what it takes to fix that problem.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k493ogb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k493wo7",
                    "author": "GabuEx",
                    "body": "\"You have rights\" isn't an argument against calling something slavery.  There are historical forms of slavery in which the slaves had rights.  Not many, obviously, but they had them.  You couldn't just kill a slave, for example.\n\nThe key point that makes something slavery is that working is not optional.  There will be serious and immediate consequences if you do not work.  By that standard, it is entirely reasonable to talk about wage slavery as slavery.  For someone living paycheck to paycheck, a single missed paycheck might mean they no longer can pay their bills.  Not being able to pay their bills might mean they lose their home.  They must work, or face immediate, serious consequences.\n\nSure, you can say \"get a better job\", but how?  If you're working two jobs just to make ends meet, you're going to be dead tired and you won't have the spoons to bother in the short periods of time between work to actually go job hunting seriously - and that's assuming there even is a better job out there. Get an education?  Again, how?  Where does the money or the time come from?\n\nThe whole point of talking about wage slavery is to make the point that this isn't something people just choose for themselves because they're lazy or whatever.  They're stuck in a position where they either work or they starve and become homeless, and they have little to no hope of every having a better lot in life.  That sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k495pws",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The key point that makes something slavery is that working is not optional, and that there will be serious and immediate consequences if you do not work.  By that standard, it is entirely reasonable to talk about wage slavery as slavery.  For someone living paycheck to paycheck, a single missed paycheck might mean they no longer can pay their bills.  Not being able to pay their bills might mean they lose their home.  They must work, or face immediate, serious consequences.  \n>  \n>Sure, you can say \"get a better job\", but how?  If you're working two jobs just to make ends meet, you're going to be dead tired and you won't have the spoons to bother in the short periods of time between work to actually go job hunting seriously - and that's assuming there even is a better job out there. Get an education?  Again, how?  Where does the money or the time come from?\n\nI do not place the blame on the workers or \"wage slaves\". I put the blame on an inadequate social safety net, and in the post details, I mention that we should be talking about that instead and doing something to fix that.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k493wo7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k49seb8",
                    "author": "BeefcakeWellington",
                    "body": "So here's what I don't understand: you have outlined all the ways in which wage slavery isn't slavery at all, and yet your position is we shouldn't use it because it's cheap and slavery, not because IT ISN'T SLAVERY. Isn't that the better and more complete argument? It's a voluntary exchange. It's literally the opposite of slavery, (*Slavery being the noun in the adjective noun combo of wage slavery.*)",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k49uzgf",
                    "author": "TarotAngels",
                    "body": "For most of human history there has not been wages, period. Most people \u201cworked\u201d for their families or communities in exchange for being part of that family or community. So paid or unpaid is not the differentiator between slavery and working. \n\nSlavery has to do with the amount of choice you have. Nobody has to be *physically* preventing you from working somewhere else for it to be slavery. In fact, economic suppression is much easier and less resource intensive for oppressors to pull off.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4dcv0p",
                    "author": "romantic_gestalt",
                    "body": "Slavery is slavery and all of it needs to be called out. Wage slavery is just slavery lite(tm). It's not as easy to ignore slavery when you realize you've been enslaved as well. In unity, it's easier to rebel.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4drc26",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": "Not all slavery involves chattel slaves who can be bought and sold. All slavery is bad. Not all forms of slavery are equally horrible.\n\nWhen wages are so low and the pain for not having a wage is so great that people cannot meaningfully choose to leave their jobs or better themselves, wage slavery is an appropriate term.",
                    "date": "2023-10-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4ill4j",
                    "author": "robotmonkeyshark",
                    "body": "You can quit your job as a slave, albeit at physical risk to yourself, and there is plenty of more literal slavery that is outside the scope of the law in places around the world. \n\nSlaveowners can say you have been traded, but if you refuse to work for either of them, paperwork saying you have been traded doesn't mean much. \n\nThere are places where slaves still have some rights as well. \n\nLet's say you are born in a poor village.  The only work that pays enough to keep from starving to death is the local mine owner.  He pays you a wage, but he also owns all the land and all the businesses around.  so you can work for money, but unless you want to starve, you are going to spend that money at his stores to buy food.  feel free to leave, but its not like there is an adjacent village paying more for a job that you have enough skill to perform.  basically you can work there for the rest of your life or you can leave and likely die after a couple days of wandering.  Are you a slave in this situation or are you a voluntary employee?\n\nNow obviously there is a spectrum here.  If someone in the US has 100k in the bank, marketable skills, and is just unhappy with their current job, its quite a stretch to say they are a wage slave, but lets say instead you are a in the US, you had a bad upbringing and were extremely poor and ended up associating with the wrong people to get by.  At 18 you were arrested due to your association with a drug dealer and people falsely accused you of crimes you didn't commit, but being uneducated and broke and with an overworked and underpaid defense attorney who warned you that losing this case could land you up to 20 years in prison, but by cutting a deal, you get a non-violent felony conviction and just 1 year in prison.  So you take it.  You manage to finally find some job that is okay with you being a felon, but good luck just leaving and wandering into a new town and finding someone willing to hire a felon.  Are you a slave at this point, or are you still not allowed to use that term?",
                    "date": "2023-10-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "174g1le",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k496wuc",
                "author": "ralph-j",
                "body": "> To call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the gun owners wearing yellow star badges - sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nThere's a difference between using a term in a figurative, non-literal sense to draw a partial comparison, and suggesting a full equivalence in bad faith.\n\nEspecially since there is an established secondary meaning that doesn't imply chattel slavery, but rather being *a slave to something*, i.e. we can be slaves to technology, slaves to fashion, slaves to the rhythm, slaves to love etc.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "174g1le"
            },
            {
                "id": "k4974ob",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": ">Especially since there is an established secondary meaning that doesn't imply chattel slavery, but rather being *a slave to something*, i.e. we can be slaves to technology, slaves to fashion, slaves to the rhythm, slaves to love etc.\n\n!delta\n\nThe mistake I made was to not assume that \"wage slave\" is using the established secondary meaning of slave. It's not comparable to the yellow star badges worn by gun owners because that yellow star doesn't have a less dark secondary meaning.",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k496wuc"
            },
            {
                "id": "k4976zr",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ralph-j ([472\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ralph-j)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k4974ob"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k491nog",
                    "author": "Beginning_Impress_99",
                    "body": "Can we know your definition of 'slavery' then? \n\nYou can point out the differences between wage slavery and extreme forms of holocaust slavery / chattel slavery --- but that does not mean that wage slavery isnt slavery.\n\nFor example, I can point out the difference between 'red colour' and 'yellow colour' (wavelengths etc) --- that does not mean that red colour isnt actually colour.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4948g6",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Can we know your definition of 'slavery' then?\n\nSimilar to that of Britannica - which is \"*Slavery, condition in which one human being was owned by another. A slave was considered by law as property, or chattel, and was deprived of most of the rights ordinarily held by free persons.*\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k491nog"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k492r7l",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "It's illusion that you have freedom to quit your job.\n\nSur you can but what is alternative? Starvation and death. It's not honestly a free choice.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k494cd2",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">Sur you can but what is alternative? Starvation and death. It's not honestly a free choice.\n\nExactly, and that's why I mentioned in the post details \"*To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.*\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k492r7l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4930zb",
                    "author": "ZARAeyewear",
                    "body": "I think slaves had it even better back then, they at least got a home and food with work...",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k494eux",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "If having to accept the possibility of being whipped, raped or killed is a fair deal in your eyes, then sure.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4930zb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k493ogb",
                    "author": "perfectVoidler",
                    "body": ">You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n\nit is not a financial risk tho. In america it is an existential risk. If you don't work you die. You are forced to work by the system. You literally don't have the freedom to not work. Therefore it is called slavery. \n\nWage slavery is not used for stagnated wages. It is used for people working 3 jobs and still living at the minimum.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4959pb",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">it is not a financial risk tho. In america it is an existential risk. If you don't work you die. You are forced to work by the system. You literally don't have the freedom to not work. Therefore it is called slavery.\n\nThis is why I mentioned in the post details that we should be talking more about the lack of a social safety net and doing what it takes to fix that problem.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k493ogb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k493wo7",
                    "author": "GabuEx",
                    "body": "\"You have rights\" isn't an argument against calling something slavery.  There are historical forms of slavery in which the slaves had rights.  Not many, obviously, but they had them.  You couldn't just kill a slave, for example.\n\nThe key point that makes something slavery is that working is not optional.  There will be serious and immediate consequences if you do not work.  By that standard, it is entirely reasonable to talk about wage slavery as slavery.  For someone living paycheck to paycheck, a single missed paycheck might mean they no longer can pay their bills.  Not being able to pay their bills might mean they lose their home.  They must work, or face immediate, serious consequences.\n\nSure, you can say \"get a better job\", but how?  If you're working two jobs just to make ends meet, you're going to be dead tired and you won't have the spoons to bother in the short periods of time between work to actually go job hunting seriously - and that's assuming there even is a better job out there. Get an education?  Again, how?  Where does the money or the time come from?\n\nThe whole point of talking about wage slavery is to make the point that this isn't something people just choose for themselves because they're lazy or whatever.  They're stuck in a position where they either work or they starve and become homeless, and they have little to no hope of every having a better lot in life.  That sounds an awful lot like slavery to me.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k495pws",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": ">The key point that makes something slavery is that working is not optional, and that there will be serious and immediate consequences if you do not work.  By that standard, it is entirely reasonable to talk about wage slavery as slavery.  For someone living paycheck to paycheck, a single missed paycheck might mean they no longer can pay their bills.  Not being able to pay their bills might mean they lose their home.  They must work, or face immediate, serious consequences.  \n>  \n>Sure, you can say \"get a better job\", but how?  If you're working two jobs just to make ends meet, you're going to be dead tired and you won't have the spoons to bother in the short periods of time between work to actually go job hunting seriously - and that's assuming there even is a better job out there. Get an education?  Again, how?  Where does the money or the time come from?\n\nI do not place the blame on the workers or \"wage slaves\". I put the blame on an inadequate social safety net, and in the post details, I mention that we should be talking about that instead and doing something to fix that.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k493wo7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k49seb8",
                    "author": "BeefcakeWellington",
                    "body": "So here's what I don't understand: you have outlined all the ways in which wage slavery isn't slavery at all, and yet your position is we shouldn't use it because it's cheap and slavery, not because IT ISN'T SLAVERY. Isn't that the better and more complete argument? It's a voluntary exchange. It's literally the opposite of slavery, (*Slavery being the noun in the adjective noun combo of wage slavery.*)",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k49uzgf",
                    "author": "TarotAngels",
                    "body": "For most of human history there has not been wages, period. Most people \u201cworked\u201d for their families or communities in exchange for being part of that family or community. So paid or unpaid is not the differentiator between slavery and working. \n\nSlavery has to do with the amount of choice you have. Nobody has to be *physically* preventing you from working somewhere else for it to be slavery. In fact, economic suppression is much easier and less resource intensive for oppressors to pull off.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4dcv0p",
                    "author": "romantic_gestalt",
                    "body": "Slavery is slavery and all of it needs to be called out. Wage slavery is just slavery lite(tm). It's not as easy to ignore slavery when you realize you've been enslaved as well. In unity, it's easier to rebel.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4drc26",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": "Not all slavery involves chattel slaves who can be bought and sold. All slavery is bad. Not all forms of slavery are equally horrible.\n\nWhen wages are so low and the pain for not having a wage is so great that people cannot meaningfully choose to leave their jobs or better themselves, wage slavery is an appropriate term.",
                    "date": "2023-10-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "174g1le",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is inspired by the *Foreign Correspondent* episode [Barbados: Who Should Pay for its Slave Past? | Foreign Correspondent](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehsWF2CXcqk&pp=ygUVZm9yZWlnbiBjb3JyZXNwb25kZW50)\n\n[Wage slavery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery) is a term frequently thrown around to describe a situation where employers maximise profit by keeping wages as low as possible. However, unlike actual slavery, in \"wage slavery\":\n\n* You are legally allowed to quit your job, albeit at a financial risk to yourself\n* You can't be traded between employers against your will\n* You have the rights of a worker (which admittedly varies widely between countries), and your employer isn't allowed to physically or sexually abuse you\n\nTo call it \"wage slavery\" is equivalent to the [gun owners wearing yellow star badges](https://www.timesofisrael.com/website-offers-yellow-star-patches-for-persecuted-gun-owners/) \\- sure, the gun owners are entitled to their opinion that they are losing their gun rights, but their action cheapens the suffering of Holocaust victims. \n\nMe saying that the term \"wage slavery\" cheapens the suffering of actual slaves is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix. To replace the term \"wage slavery\", we should be talking of stagnant wages, wage theft, unaffordable housing and inadequate social safety nets - and we should be taking action to relieve those problems.",
                    "date": "2023-10-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We shouldn't use the term \"wage slavery\" as that cheapens the suffering of actual slaves. This is not a dismissal of the huge economic problems we have to fix.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/174g1le/cmv_we_shouldnt_use_the_term_wage_slavery_as_that/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4ill4j",
                    "author": "robotmonkeyshark",
                    "body": "You can quit your job as a slave, albeit at physical risk to yourself, and there is plenty of more literal slavery that is outside the scope of the law in places around the world. \n\nSlaveowners can say you have been traded, but if you refuse to work for either of them, paperwork saying you have been traded doesn't mean much. \n\nThere are places where slaves still have some rights as well. \n\nLet's say you are born in a poor village.  The only work that pays enough to keep from starving to death is the local mine owner.  He pays you a wage, but he also owns all the land and all the businesses around.  so you can work for money, but unless you want to starve, you are going to spend that money at his stores to buy food.  feel free to leave, but its not like there is an adjacent village paying more for a job that you have enough skill to perform.  basically you can work there for the rest of your life or you can leave and likely die after a couple days of wandering.  Are you a slave in this situation or are you a voluntary employee?\n\nNow obviously there is a spectrum here.  If someone in the US has 100k in the bank, marketable skills, and is just unhappy with their current job, its quite a stretch to say they are a wage slave, but lets say instead you are a in the US, you had a bad upbringing and were extremely poor and ended up associating with the wrong people to get by.  At 18 you were arrested due to your association with a drug dealer and people falsely accused you of crimes you didn't commit, but being uneducated and broke and with an overworked and underpaid defense attorney who warned you that losing this case could land you up to 20 years in prison, but by cutting a deal, you get a non-violent felony conviction and just 1 year in prison.  So you take it.  You manage to finally find some job that is okay with you being a felon, but good luck just leaving and wandering into a new town and finding someone willing to hire a felon.  Are you a slave at this point, or are you still not allowed to use that term?",
                    "date": "2023-10-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "174g1le"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "177n1k1",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                "date": "2023-10-14",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k4u3uhj",
                "author": "Future_Green_7222",
                "body": "The definition of two sets being equal is that you can find a one-to-one (bijection) function between the two sets. We find\n\n`f(n)=2n)`\n\n`f^-^1(n)=n/2`\n\nLet's interpret what this means. It means that for every even number, there exist a unique natural number, and we can exhaust all natural numbers in this way. If on one hand we had a set of straight men labelled 1,2,3,4.... and a set of straight women labelled 2,4,6,8... , then we would be able to pair them upwith the above function so that (a) everyone has only 1 partner and (b) nobody gets left behind. This why we say they have the same _cardinality_. \n\n(I know the example is heteronormative but it's an example.)\n\nI know it's counter intuitive and it's ok if you don't _feel_ like it, but I hope I brought some intuition to the mathematical concept. As I've always said, mathematics is an invented tool that's really useful but not \"an inherent reality\".",
                "date": "2023-10-14",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "177n1k1"
            },
            {
                "id": "k53mf97",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "!delta\n\nI've been learning that cardinality isn't *quite* the same thing of size and that perhaps my difficulty is coming from my trying to make my brain think of them as literally different words for the same thing\n\nI need to learn more about cardinality",
                "date": "2023-10-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k4u3uhj"
            },
            {
                "id": "k53mh48",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Future_Green_7222 ([5\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Future_Green_7222)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-16",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k53mf97"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u178f",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "Short answer: no.\n\nAs to why your example doesn't work for the whole numbers. If you bound a set you are not talking about the same set. Specifically you have taken an infinite set and bounded it to be finite. \n\nDoes that make sense?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u3xpt",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "I guess what I'm confused about is, why is ok to compare the cardinality of two infinite sets by ordering the elements in a certain way, but the same can't be done for finite sets?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4u178f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u1vq0",
                    "author": "MysticInept",
                    "body": "That is why we use the word cardinality and not \"same numbers\".\n\nThe proof that they are not the same would be some mathematical proof by contradiction. that assumes cardinality of the two sets and reaches a false conclusion. That doesn't exist, and that that is really what cardinality is",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k53lpyz",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Does two sets having the same cardinality mean the same thing as two sets having the same size?",
                    "date": "2023-10-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4u1vq0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u26vb",
                    "author": "acquavaa",
                    "body": "Do a proof by contradiction. Assume there is one more whole number than even numbers. That whole number must be odd because otherwise it would be included in both sets and they\u2019d have the same cardinality again. So the number is odd. By definition, then, there exists an even number such that this odd number is 2n + 1 of that. But then that means for every odd number, there must be a corresponding even number (not counting 1 and 2).",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u4nfs",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "I'm not sure I follow.\n\nSo because you could map every odd number to an even number, they don't count as being elements that are in the whole numbers set but not in the even numbers set?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k4u26vb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u3fiw",
                    "author": "woailyx",
                    "body": "You can always arrange infinite sets so they look unequal, that doesn't prove anything. You can say there are twice as many natural numbers as there are natural numbers, by listing the natural numbers next to the evens and saying that on one side you still have the odds left over. So you have to be a bit careful with infinite sets. \n\nThe point is that if you can show a complete one-to-one mapping between all of the elements of one set and all of the elements of the other set, then they must be equal, because you've accounted for them all",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4u8vvp",
                    "author": "Affectionate_Money34",
                    "body": "You could, but that goes both ways\n\n1 - 4\n2 - 8\n3 - 12\nn - 4n\nNow you've matched all the natural numbers to half of the even numbers, and you have so many left\n\nNote: it's not an ordering thing, that's a whole different pandora's box. It's a matching thing. You can define the \"sizes\" by some representative you know, and something is of that size if you can do that matching successfully\nFor example you can say your representative are {1,2,3,...,n} for size n, for any finite n, just think if the matching like a toddler counting, where you pick up or point at the element and say its match out loud",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4uabc6",
                    "author": "Automatic-Sport-6253",
                    "body": "That\u2019s how math works: you pick a definition, you prove that something adheres to that definition, then you\u2019re done. No matter how counterintuitive it is. And when it comes to infinities there\u2019s a lot of counterintuitive things.\n\nOne of the definitions of infinite sets is \u201ca set that have a proper subset that has the same cardinality as the whole set\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4uaios",
                    "author": "glorkvorn",
                    "body": "Cardinality of infinities is very weird and unintuitive, even by the standards of abstract mathematics. You kind of have to abandon your intuition (developed from day-to-day life) and just trust the chain of logic, even if it seems weird. I'm sure other people will show you proofs. Can you find a flaw in them?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4uhm5o",
                    "author": "Sharklo22",
                    "body": "If this blows your mind, wait until you find out the set of rational numbers Q has the same cardinality as natural numbers :D. To really blow your mind a little bit more, Q is [dense in](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_set) R, meaning it's \"everywhere\": pick any real number x, any radius r as small as you want it to be, there will always be a rational number in the interval ]x-r, x+r[. This is clearly not so the case of N, for any radius < 1/2 and, say, x = 3/2, ]x-r,x+r[ does not contain any natural numbers. \n\nBut wait, it gets better. Despite the fact Q is \"all over R\" (dense), it is also \"practically nowhere in R\" (not a term, but to state the opposite of [almost everywhere](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Almost_everywhere)) for the usual notion of [measure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)) (how big are intervals, not to confuse with cardinality, it's a different notion) in R (Lebesgue measure). \n\nWhat this means in practice is, if you had a function defined over R worth 1 for every non-rational number, and 0 for every rational number, then it would appear to be 0 everywhere.\n\nNow for cardinality. \n\nSo, cardinality is based on the following: \"can I associate each item in set A uniquely with an element of set B?\". If so, then A and B have the same cardinality. In mathematical terms, you say there exists a bijection between A and B. \n\nFor example, {1,apple,!} can be associated uniquely to the elements in {1,2,3}. Say, 1 goes to 3, apple goes to 1 and ! goes to 2. So the sets have the same cardinality. Because {1,2,3} is a subset of the natural numbers, you also know its cardinality as a number (3). \n\nBut what if the sets are not finite? Let's denote N the set of natural numbers and take the set of even numbers E. How can we characterize this set? For every element e in E, there exists a n in N such that e = 2n. See how we're already halfway through the definition of there being a bijection with N. We just need to show unicity now. Let e and e' be two elements in E and assume they write e = 2n and e' = 2n (same n). Then, trivially, e = e'. This means that, if two elements of E are associated to the same element in N, then they are the same element. Or, in other words, n is unique for each e. And thus, you have shown that F : E->N, x in E -> x / 2 in N is a bijection between E and N. Therefore they have the same cardinality. \n\nSets are not ordered per se. You can introduce an [order relationship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_theory) < (just an abstract notation), and then you can say that a set-relationship pair (E,<) is ordered. But E might be ordered for < and not for another relationship <'. This has no bearing on its cardinality. \n\nSome sets cannot be ordered (meaningfully), like the set of complex numbers C.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4uiey0",
                    "author": "Naturalnumbers",
                    "body": "My time has come.\n\n>But couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them not the same cardinality?\n\nHow would you do this, specifically?\n\n>e.g. the same sets but capped at 100. \n\nBut then you're not talking about the set of all natural numbers and the set of all even numbers, you're only talking about a very limited set of each.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4ukroi",
                    "author": "notapersonplacething",
                    "body": "I think you are having a tough time intuitively grasping the concept of infinity which is not as intuitive as you might think. I am guessing the thought you have in your head is:  \n\n\nHow can these sets possibly be equal if one set contains every number of the other set PLUS all of the odd numbers. Intuitively I know the whole number set has twice as many numbers since it has both evens and odds. I know if I stop the set at 100 and count then for sure there are twice as many whole numbers as there are just even numbers because you are running out of numbers quicker.  \n\n\nBut that is the tricky thing about infinity it is not a number you can reach, it is a concept. You are right if you stop at 100, 1000, or 10000 you would have more whole numbers than you would even numbers, but that is not what is happening. You are going on....forever!  \n\n\nSo if these sets were represented by two trains on parallel tracks where there were stations in the middle of the two trains then all we would need to do to make sure these trains run at the same speed forever is to uniquely name these stations.   \n\n\nFor the first stop I am calling it station \"one-two\", the next stop is station \"two-four\", the third stop is station \"three-six\" and so on. Since you never run out of names for these stations and you never run out of track these two trains will run forever side by side.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4um86a",
                    "author": "PM_ME_YOUR_BOO_URNS",
                    "body": "> e.g. the same sets but capped at 100\n\nThen you're talking about \"a set of whole numbers between 1 and 100\", not \"a set with all the whole numbers\". It ain't the same league, it ain't even the same sport.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4upjg6",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "From the definition on Wikipedia:\n> Two sets A and B have the same cardinality if there exists a bijection (a.k.a., one-to-one correspondence) from A to B, that is, a function from A to B that is both injective and surjective.\n\n\nf(x)=2x is a bijection from N to 2N, so the two sets have the same cardinality \n\n\nFinite sets don\u2019t work with N because the function has to be a bijection.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4uq851",
                    "author": "jaminfine",
                    "body": "The gap here is in understanding \"infinity.\" \n\nInfinity is not a number, so it doesn't work like numbers do. If you have infinity twice, it's still one infinity. That's really what's going on here.\n\nSure, you have twice as many natural numbers as even numbers for any stopping point you can think of. But if it's all infinite of them? It's infinity either way. So having twice infinity doesn't change that it's still infinity. It's the same \"size\" because for either one it just goes on forever. The speed it goes at doesn't matter if it never ends.\n\nThe ordering comes up because we like to draw a line between infinity that is \"countable\" versus infinity that isn't. Imagine you have a space ship that can keep drifting through space forever in one direction. It can't turn though. So, as it keeps drifting through the centuries and millenniums, you always know it's on that line it was originally facing. And you could even predict how far it drifted if you know it's speed and initial angle. Now let's say it's drifting twice as fast. Does that mean it ever reaches a new area the first slower ship can't reach? No, it just gets there faster. \n\nBut, now let's say you have a new space ship that can do more than just drift. It can move in any direction and change speeds. Now, you can no longer predict where it will go or how far away it is. This is a bit of a weird analogy, but that's what the real numbers are. Because they have so many different ways of being infinite, they are a \"larger\" infinity. They could have infinite digits after the decimal point, but they also could have infinite digits before the decimal point.\n\nIf I name a natural number, say 1 million, someone who counts up all the natural numbers will eventually theoretically count \"1 million.\" Because it's on the line that the drifting spaceship will eventually drift to. But for real numbers it won't work. If I name (e-2pi) as a real number, there's no system of counting the real numbers that will eventually name that number. You can't \"count\" the real numbers.\n\nUltimately it's still infinity. It still never ends, so does it even make sense to say it's \"larger\"? Maybe not. But it can't be counted, and for some reason mathematicians care about that difference. Maybe just because it's something we actually can say about it, when infinity is such a hard thing to make good conclusions about.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4us1ax",
                    "author": "slybird",
                    "body": "I don't understand what is hard to understand.\n\nIf there is an infinite number of numbers. There is also an infinite number of even numbers. \n\nYou might want to read up on Hilbert's Grand Hotel.\n\nThere is a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. The hotel is completely filled. A bus rolls up with an infinite number of people and they all want rooms. The hotel clerk says no problem. \n\nTo make room the clerk gets all the guests to move into the room number double to the one they are in. Person in room one moves to room 2. Person in room 2 moves to room 4. . . .\n\nonce that is done the hotel now has an infinite number of rooms available to make room for all the infinite number of people that rolled up in the bus.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4ux2iv",
                    "author": "eggynack",
                    "body": ">But couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them not the same cardinality?\n\nIf I wanted to, I could pair whole numbers with even numbers such that you run out of evens but have infinitely many whole numbers left over. For example, pair each even number with itself in the whole numbers. So 2 goes to 2, 4 goes to 4, 6 goes to 6, and so on. Every even is accounted for, but the odds are not.\n\nHowever, I could also do the opposite, pairing the evens with the wholes such that I have infinite evens left over. For example, pair each whole with every other even. 1 goes to 2, 2 goes to 6, 3 goes to 10, 4 goes to 14, and so on. You could alternately frame this as each whole number n going to 4n-2 in the evens. \n\nThe capacity to do this is irrelevant. For any two countably infinite sets, which these two sets are, you can easily generate a mapping that accounts for all of one set but not all of the other. What makes them the same size is that there is at least one mapping that accounts for every element of each set exactly once.\n\n> the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. \n\nI mean, you just explained why it doesn't work for finite sets very succinctly. You run out of numbers in one of the sets, and there are still numbers left in the other set. More to the point, there is no mapping that can get past this issue. There are just more whole numbers from 1 to 100 than there are even numbers in the same range.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4v56na",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nYep, cardinality means that every number has a corresponding pair. It becomes obvious when using functions. You can describe an array holding infinite number of even numbers as [2x]. This means that for every element [x] there is a corresponding element of [2x]. Therefore both infinite sets have the same cardinality.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4v5tge",
                    "author": "sar2120",
                    "body": "In order to prove that there are more whole numbers than even numbers, you could try to map them 1 to 1 the same way you would with a finite set, and if you have any extra of one or the other then that one is \u201cbigger\u201d.\n\nSince both sets are bounded at the same end, we start our mapping there: 1 to 2, 2 to 4, 3 to 6, etc\n\nAs we go we map from one set to the other and we don\u2019t miss any. If we miss any, we have proven they are different, but we aren\u2019t missing any.\n\nAs we keep going, we keep drawing more numbers from an infinity of them. There is no end. Pull a million numbers and the amount that remains is no smaller. That\u2019s important, this infinity is never depleted, never less.\n\nThe sets are equal in cardinality.\n\nThis is not easy to get your head around, after all the even numbers go up faster, you are getting into higher numbers sooner, isn\u2019t it ahead? Well no, and the reason is the size of the numbers that remain in both sets to be counted is the same infinitely many.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4v8vb3",
                    "author": "Few_Confusion5330",
                    "body": ">But couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them not the same cardinality?\r  \n\r  \nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets?\n\nI think these two points are the crux of the confusion.\n\nThinking about finite sets for now... How can we determine if the amount of elements in one set is the same as the amount in the other?\n\nConsider these two sets: fruits =  {orange, apple, cucumber} and makes = {chevy, ford, mercedes}\n\nWe say the two sets have the same size if there is at least one way to match each element from the first set to the second set with no overmatched (more than one connection) or unmatched elements. In this case, one such matching could be orange-chevy, apple-ford, and cucumber-mercedes. Since we found a matching that fits the rules, we say these sets have the same size.\n\nComing back to this point:\n\n>But couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them not the same cardinality?\n\nYup! In this case, we could match orange/apple-chevy and cucumber-ford; Now, mercedes is unmatched and chevy is doubly matched. This matching does not fit our rules, so we cannot conclude the sets are the same size based on this matching, but it still does not rule out the possibility that such a matching exist (we found a matching in the last paragraph)\n\n>And couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets?\n\nYup! They work pretty much the same as the finite case, except since the amount of elements are infinite, it would be literally impossible to create a matching one-by-one by hand like we did with the sets above. That's why we generalize the idea of \"matching\" to \"functions\", and say that if we can find at least one \"bijective\" function (one-to-one matching property but for functions) that connects one set to another, then the two sets have the same size.\n\nTLDR; It's about having at least one one-to-one matching, not ordering.",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4vekdh",
                    "author": "bumpybear",
                    "body": "You should post this on r/theydidthemath you\u2019ll probably get better explanations",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k4x8khw",
                    "author": "Tyreaus",
                    "body": "What you may be missing is that the ordering\u2014or mapping\\*\u2014isn't the proof. It's the test. The proof is what happens when you attempt the mapping.\n\nIn this case, the test is, \"what happens if you try to map every element of one set to exactly one element in the other set?\" If you try that, and you have no leftovers at all, then the test tells you the two sets are the same size. If you try it, but have leftovers, then the test tells you they aren't the same size.\n\nThis is what's going on with your example of sets capped at 100. We start mapping, like 1 -> 2, 2 -> 4, 3 -> 6 ... all the way up to 50 -> 100. And then we run out of members in one set. But we still have leftovers in the other set. What does that tell us? As above, we tried the test, yet we have leftovers. So that means the two sets have different sizes.\n\nConversely, when we perform this test on the infinite sets of all even numbers and all numbers, we don't have leftovers. And the way we mapped those elements\u2014the test we performed\u2014tells us that, if we have no leftovers, the two sets are the same size.\n\nThis is also why, if you order or map elements in different ways, you don't necessarily get different cardinalities. Instead, what you likely get are different *tests*\u2014ones that might not have anything to do with cardinality. (But if you have an example, I'd love to take a look at it with you!)\n\n\\*(Kind of an aside but I prefer the term \"mapping\" over \"ordering\" because, besides my IT background where we \"map\" agents to use cases, sets don't usually have an innate order. If we wanted, we could start at 10, 11, 12... then loop around to 1, 2, 3, ... up to 9 at the very end. We start at 1 to keep things convenient. But AFAIK, nothing strictly states we must go in any order with sets.)",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "177n1k1",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "So I've come across this concept that the set of natural whole numbers (including even numbers and odd numbers) has the same cardinality as the set of even numbers.\n\nI just can't wrap my brain around this. I *feel* like it's wrong, but better mathematicians than me claim it's right, so I'd like the flaws in my logic to be pointed out to me.\n\nI'd also love links to good explanations on this - a quick google search didn't provide me with anything that really clicked for me.\n\nMy reading showed me that the cardinality of a set is sort of a definition for how many elements are in that set - the size of the set.\n\nAnd that since the two sets of whole numbers and even numbers can be arranged like:\n\n1 - 2\n\n2 - 4\n\n3 - 6\n\nn - 2n ad infinitum\n\nThen the two sets have the same size.\n\nIt's an ordering thing.\n\nBut couldn't I also order it in other ways that give them *not* the same cardinality?\n\nAnd couldn't the same argument be made for finite sets? \n\ne.g. the same sets but capped at 100. I could order those sets so that they seem like they have the same cardinality, at least for the first few elements, but would run out of even numbers to pair with the whole numbers after 50. The ordering thing doesn't quite make sense to me, it feels like a cheat way to mess with uncountable sets, because technically I could do the same thing with finite sets if I just didn't bother to count the whole set. I could have that same-cardinality ordering for the first few elements but if you counted *all* the elements you'd find twice the cardinality in the whole numbers set as the even numbers set if they're both capped at 100.\n\nCan someone point out why I'm wrong?",
                    "date": "2023-10-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: There are more natural whole numbers than even numbers",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/177n1k1/cmv_there_are_more_natural_whole_numbers_than/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k50gkwy",
                    "author": "blank_anonymous",
                    "body": "Ok, so first of all, with finite sets, you can\u2019t do the same thing. Two sets having the same cardinality means there\u2019s a bijection \u2014 a function that\u2019s injective and surjective. Second of all, and very importantly, cardinality isn\u2019t the only notion of \u201csize\u201d for infinite sets. The best way to think of cardinality is as \u201ccounting size\u201d \u2014 if I used that set as my number system, how many things can I count? \n\nI\u2019d like you to imagine an alien civilization that originally had the same number system as us, but 1000 years ago, there was a religious superstition that odd numbers were unlucky to write down, and so now when they write numbers, their numbers, in order, are 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, \u2026 that is, if there\u2019s 0 objects they write 0, if there\u2019s 1 object they write 2, and so on. Is there any collection of things they can\u2019t count, that we could? The answer is no \u2014 if we would count a collection as having n elements, they could just write down 2n, is, no matter how big n is. This means they can count everything we can, despite using a different numeral system.\n\nCardinality, as you correctly point out, doesn\u2019t really care about strict subset inclusions. This is weird! There are many, many other notions of size though. One is to just put a partial order on sets, to say that A > B if A strictly contains B; the problem is this gives us plenty of sets we can\u2019t compare (under this definition, {1, 2, 3} and {a, b, c} can\u2019t be compared, but they do have the same cardinality). One option for subsets of the naturals is called \u201cnatural density\u201d, and roughly speaking, gives you the probability you pick something from that subset if you pick a random natural number \u2014 there\u2019s some subtlety in actually defining this, since \u201crandomly pick a natural number\u201d doesn\u2019t go great, but this is the right idea. The even numbers have a natural density of 1/2, so do the odd numbers; the primes have a natural density of 0 because they\u2019re pretty sparse, but there are finer notions of density that give the primes a nonzero density. There are also areas of math like measure theory that are all about assigning \u201clengths\u201d or \u201cmasses\u201d to sets. \n\nThis is all to say \u2014 there are many notions of size. Saying that N and the even numbers have the same cardinality just says they can count the same things, that is that there\u2019s a bijective function between them, and nothing more. These other ideas of size are more specific, but also give a more complete picture of the relationship. Does that make sense?",
                    "date": "2023-10-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "177n1k1"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "17d3va5",
                "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                "date": "2023-10-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k5u8oxu",
                "author": "Aggressive-Carob6256",
                "body": ">some incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit.\n\nWhat if we just never went to the effort we go to to repress women's sexuality in the first place when they are young? Never give them the impression that 'Oh you've already blown six dudes and you're only in the 10th grade? You're a total slut'. In other words, don't solve the problem, just refrain from creating it in the first place.\n\nIf we imagine a society in which women were never given the impression that exploring their sexuality to whatever extent they felt like had any sort of social consequence, I imagine all of us (men and women) would all be getting laid a lot more frequently. And that just sounds like a whole lot more fun.",
                "date": "2023-10-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "17d3va5"
            },
            {
                "id": "k5u8wa4",
                "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                "body": "!delta you actually showed it can be a societal problem. That said I think women don't need to change in this current society",
                "date": "2023-10-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k5u8oxu"
            },
            {
                "id": "k5u8y4k",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Aggressive-Carob6256 ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Aggressive-Carob6256)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k5u8wa4"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u4bqc",
                    "author": "scarab456",
                    "body": "Do you have any studies or statics that help comprise your view?  \n\nBecause this reads like you mostly based anecdotal evidence or stereotypes.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u4jmj",
                    "author": "ji-gm",
                    "body": "Any reasonable person who sees women as human beings would agree that it isn\u2019t okay for ANYONE to get violent when rejected. The issue is that the \u201cincel\u201d community, as we are calling it, has specifically built a culture where they are viewing women as objects to be won and possessed rather than fully actualized humans with thoughts and feelings. If your toaster rejected you and refused to toast your bagel you\u2019d probably get pissed at it too. That is the true issue with incels: they look at women as toasters not people like them.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u4vqb",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Aren't you agreeing with my post then? I made the post because I'm trying to understand why society has a significant chunk of people, both men and women, saying things like \"women stop being picky\". You have trad wives or Christians being mad that women are choosing to be single. While some of the reasons is not \"men will be violent\" some of it is.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5u4jmj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u4vjf",
                    "author": "Torin_3",
                    "body": "What would change your view about this?\n\nAre there any sensible people arguing that male incels cannot control their virginal murderlust, or is this thread directed at a silly thing that some internet people say?",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u50i1",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "You are creating a fallacy. Everyone who says x is sensible and everyone who says not is not, so pay no attentions to nonsensical people\n\nI guess what would change my mind is a reason why women should think of the poor men who turn violent. Why should women change their dating behaviour for the sake of men like that?",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "k5u4vjf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u4yzj",
                    "author": "TerrisKagi",
                    "body": "I don't have the faintest idea what view exactly you're trying to have changed here. This isn't the forum for random thoughts.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u568p",
                    "author": "ExRousseauScholar",
                    "body": "Isn\u2019t everybody\u2019s favorite country song about a woman destroying a dude\u2019s car after he cheated? Not a perfect analogy, but I\u2019m pretty sure women get violent (or otherwise really bad\u2014say, trashing a dude\u2019s reputation) after a break up.\n\nYes, no one should get violent after a break up. If you do, you should go to jail. We can\u2019t jail people for lying about your ex, but upon discovery, such people should be shunned by all society (for your own safety\u2019s sake, if nothing else). You should break up with another person like an adult. Unfortunately, we live in a society where people are still children into their twenties.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5ugidu",
                    "author": "mronion82",
                    "body": "You're comparing ruining a car or bitching about your ex to assault and murder. They are not the same. Check out r/whenwomenrefuse, that's what we're up against.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5u568p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u5k3o",
                    "author": "kexpert3",
                    "body": "I don't quite get your post",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u8idv",
                    "author": "Mr_McFeelie",
                    "body": "Everyone agrees that you shouldn\u2019t get violent after getting rejected. But I\u2019m not as convinced as you that men general get more violent than women. Can you back that claim up or Is it based on nothing ?",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5u8oni",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "All the stats show homicide leans towards male perps. I can't find much on women being violent because of rejection. If you do that would be cool",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5u8idv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5ubl49",
                    "author": "LexicalMountain",
                    "body": ">I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do.\n\nWell, no. I mean, they can. If a woman with a degree in psychology, studies male loneliness, I am confident that she knows what she's talking about. What they mean is that women do not feel male loneliness. Which is, like, axiomatically true. Like how while a male endocrinologist might intimately understand the hormonal workings of the menstrual cycle, he's never felt PMS.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5ubxk7",
                    "author": "kickstand",
                    "body": "Why do you want your view changed?",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5ucl6f",
                    "author": "Fresher2070",
                    "body": "So I'm going to speak a bit bluntly but I do want to point out that I am not trying to mean.\n\nBut here's a few things, such as, that testosterone increases aggression. Men are generally geared towards physical aggression. Actions are dictated by body chemistry and thoughts, even thoughts can be dictated by chemistry. So if a man has higher levels of testosterone it may be difficult for him to control his actions. Loosely speaking, it could be like when a women hits that time of the month and becomes more sensitive to their emotions. \n\nThere's also the social aspect that men are not taught about their feelings and how to express them in the same way as women. I've heard.men say \"I don't get sad I just get angry\" not realizing that anger and sadness can go hand in hand. But feeling that aggression is probably going to be more comforting and feel more \"manly\" than just crying out.\n\nId also throw out there that there is a disconnect between Men who are abused and men who report that abuse. So it's not impossible for women to have attacked a man. They also may not direct that violence towards the man but something else. There was a popular country song bout a woman keying her ex's car because cheated on her. Society does tend to look at violence perpetuated by a female differently than a man's as well.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5wlvfb",
                    "author": "hiddeninthewillow",
                    "body": "Just to address your first point, while there has been a positive correlation between testosterone and violence, the correlation is far weaker than other non-physiological aspects (socioeconomic status, education level, etc). I find it\u2019s one of the weaker point to argue on, and can sometimes lead to more biological essentialism in arguments. I think your second and third points are good! \n\nSource: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X19304519",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5ucl6f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5ue1vu",
                    "author": "Fastenedhotdog55",
                    "body": "Some people should be forced to beat some level of Eva AI virtual partner simulator before actually being allowed to have a date.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5wt5c8",
                    "author": "AbolishDisney",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5ue1vu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5uhc3x",
                    "author": "Happy-Viper",
                    "body": "This doesn't seem like solid logic at all.\n\nThere's no connection between \"Whether it's a personal or societal problem\" and \"Whether or not one responds violently to the problem.\"",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5ur1ce",
                    "author": "Ill-Valuable6211",
                    "body": "No one owes you love or sex, and getting violent because you're rejected is a pathetic and cowardly excuse for not dealing with your own emotional shortcomings; grow the fuck up, take responsibility for your mental health, and stop expecting the world to bend because you can't handle rejection.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5vv4rb",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Ill-Valuable6211 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Ill-Valuable6211&message=Ill-Valuable6211%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/-/k5ur1ce/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5ur1ce"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5usk0l",
                    "author": "mrm0nster",
                    "body": "The problem of male violence is a cause of biology, not of loneliness. Loneliness may be correlated and there may be reasons why men don\u2019t handle loneliness as well as women\u2026but regardless of loneliness, men are FAR more violent than women, lonely or not. This pattern holds in every culture across the world. \n\nI think the actual behavior is referred to as \u201caggression\u201d by social scientists. This is where the difference lies between men and women (broadly speaking). A person\u2019s likelihood to display aggressive behavior is mainly a result of biochemistry/hormones\u2014the amount of testosterone has a huge influence. Men have more testosterone than women. A lot more.\n\nThe most-aggressive women are usually as aggressive as the 20th percentile for men. Meaning 8 of 10 men are more aggressive than the most-aggressive woman. I\u2019m on mobile and can\u2019t cite this currently, so I don\u2019t know what defines aggression, but it\u2019s probably frequency/likelihood to use some threshold level of physical aggression.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5wqrgl",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "If its biology why do we have Taliban's and Japanese or Swedish men. They are all men. I am not convinced its biology. I think its the society that tells men they are entitled to a woman",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5usk0l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5uudi7",
                    "author": "Friendly-Device3028",
                    "body": "If women can restrain themselves from yelling/hitting then so can a man, especially if it\u2019s known that women have a harder time regulating emotions",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5uuh34",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Women should not yell. Neither should men",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k5uudi7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5uvk0k",
                    "author": "Accomplished_Edie",
                    "body": "I\u2019m confused? You seem to be heavily generalizing men and women. I\u2019ll try to answer best I can. I can\u2019t say I won\u2019t generalize myself but yeah.\n\nIn my personal experience, it is women who often get more aggressive on the topic of relationships whether that is verbally or physically. It is just a thing that happens, as socially women can be seen as inferior or weaker making them lash out seem less\u2026 impactful?\n\nMen often do things because they\u2019re ignorant, they don\u2019t understand themselves let alone the women they try to court. It is easier to blame all women than to blame oneself for how people view you. When men cross a woman\u2019s boundary, it\u2019s because they did not communicate and more often than not establish consent.\n\nConsent is so fucking crucial for both men and women, men at times can\u2019t seem to take a hint and likewise don\u2019t establish boundaries for themselves. No one would have to ask where to stop if both sides agreed on where the starting line was to begin with.\n\nPeople would rather risk traumatizing themselves or others, than simply ask if it\u2019s okay to kiss, if they\u2019re comfortable with touching. \n\nI don\u2019t mean to say that it is okay for women to lash out etc but it\u2019s something I see a lot. Feminine rage has roots in being socially and systemically oppressed and it can come out very passionately or subconsciously.\n\nNow of course it entirely depends on the woman\u2019s character, there are a significant amount of women who would rather keep their heads down etc, but in relationships the \u201ccrazy ex gf\u201d is a common theme.\n\nI don\u2019t have statistics on me but, it\u2019s common that women are generally more violent and physical in a relationship but aren\u2019t considered dangerous, just crazy and nonsensical. They\u2019ll throw your stuff, ruin your shit, key your car etc. Women that do commit acts of violence that lead to a fatality or near fatality are often considered insane or crazy and are publicized.\n\nMen can also be quite violent, however, when they act in a heat of passion or what have you, it more often leads to the death of their partner. And for whatever reason, is more socially acceptable than a woman committing violence. Some people may ask \u201cwhat did the she do?\u201d If a guy admits to hitting, abusing, or even killing his spouse. Which is insane to me that that is the first question. \n\nBut on the topics of incels, the answer is not to\u2026 date more, I agree. And incels becoming violent isn\u2019t a societal issue. It\u2019s that men in general, when they are violent, leads to long term traumas, PTSD, and death in themselves and those they affect. And that lack of emotional regulation can lead to heightened feelings of anger as an outlet.\n\nIt is a societal issue that men moreso do not attend therapy, do not emotionally connect with themselves or others, and do not understand their own feelings and needs. \n\nIn most cases, it isn\u2019t women who need to attend rape and sexual assault prevention courses, it\u2019s men. Because, unfortunately, men aren\u2019t taught to respect women, at least not in the right way. \n\nA woman\u2019s standards should never be dictated by society, it\u2019s a woman\u2019s standard for a reason. It is their standard, that is entirely up to them.\n\nIf they wish to give an \u201cincel\u201d a chance, there is nothing you or I should do about it, it\u2019s their choice. Same on the reverse, if a woman isn\u2019t interested, it isn\u2019t her place, she doesn\u2019t want it so that\u2019s where it should end.\n\nA lot of toxic relationships could have been resolved or never occurred if both men and women treated themselves and each other with empathy and understanding and not simply assume half the time and ignore the rest.\n\nCommunication is key, and it shouldn\u2019t be reactive it should be proactive. Set boundaries, understand each other, don\u2019t fucking resort to mind games and physical abuse because you can\u2019t talk. Men leading women and women leading men around in circles causes cycles of abuse.\n\nInternet culture consistently teaches the worst application of relationship advice and creates a vocal minority that sets the standard of both men and women and how people view their own relationships and others.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5v82we",
                    "author": "lastfreethinker",
                    "body": "Who said women don't turn violent at being rejected. You have clearly never been propositioned by a woman you want to reject. Men will actually agree to sex because if they rejected the women it would become a yelling screaming hitting mess. Just ask guys around you if they have agreed to sex because regretting them is worse.\n\nThis is a conversation we have to have but humanity can't deal with it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5vafc4",
                    "author": "doompoasting",
                    "body": "> so my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single.\n\nMen and women are different. They are going to react to similar circumstances differently, on average. Expecting men to react the same as women to things is just a failure to understand men. \n\nThe same applies to cultural/social factors. Japan has a very particular and unique culture. Can't just point at Japan and say \"we need to react to things the way they react to things\". \n\n\n> some incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit.\n\nDunno why you assume its only incels who talk about that. Societies that fail to give its young men enough opportunities to find success or get laid tend to run into problems real fast. Disenfranchised young men tend to fuck things up, and I'm not particularly interested in dealing with the consequences of that. \n\nObviously the answer to this problem is not \"get women to lower there standards\", as if that's just a dial you turn on a dashboard. These are deep structural problems that we have developed as a society. We produce unprecedented amounts of traumatized, dysfunctional neurotics- and both men and women tend to manifest these issues in different ways.\n\n> we see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women.\n\nYes. Men and women react to issues differently. \n\n> Therefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nYou can't just \"tell men to go to anger management\" just like you can't just tell women to go date more. What you are doing is effectively telling men to get better at coping, which has quite literally never (ever) worked. Those are not causal issues, they are symptomatic. The questions you should be asking are: \"why are we turning out so many poorly developed young people\".",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5vixgu",
                    "author": "45nmRFSOI",
                    "body": "I think most women stay single by choice. Most men stay single because they can't help it. So they get frustrated. Not justifying it or anything, just saying why it happens.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5wps00",
                    "author": "TheBigHairyThing",
                    "body": "lol are you seriously suggesting women don't get violent or angry when being rejected? You clearly don't know many women if that's the case.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5x5yq1",
                    "author": "Educational_Emu9711",
                    "body": "I've seen women get verbally aggressive, calling men bitches, fags , gay and become violent after being rejected.\n\nFor sure, people shouldn't become violent after being rejected, but sometimes they do \ud83e\udd37\n\nThere has been an agenda from both the left and the right to destroy the traditional family unit. Some of the things that have been done to further that agenda has created a group of incels and some of their complaints are legitimate.",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5yrx9w",
                    "author": "Brokenest",
                    "body": "4 things:\n\n>I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single.\n\nThere are no \"studies\". Let me explain, these are statistics taken from surveys that are context sensitive and generate confusing narratives. One of the major interesting things about such context is that women reported being happier in a relationship *when their partners were around* but when alone reported being unhappier meanwhile women not in a relationship didn't have a choice and reported an evenness. \n\nThe same thing happens to be true of parenting. Humans report enjoying parenting when they've been around their children in general but once they are away from their children for a prolonged amount of time they may slide back and away from that particular idea switching sides. Again, for the childless, this is relatively stable because there's nothing to swing on.\n\nThese statistical myths are presented as a form of \"explanation\" for a soothing outcome but while Dolan does acknowledge this he doesn't do a great job of explaining how things really work outside of his opinion and he doesn't do a great job of differentiating between the two either. There are other myths like this as well such as sexual satisfaction being higher with female partners than male partners relative to orgasms which, if looked at and assessed, there were only 800 women who were homosexual women in the study versus 2,500 heterosexual women and when corrected for size difference the outcomes were actually really quite similar.\n\nBasically it's bad statistical practices to achieve outcomes one wants and then headlines that don't match reality.\n\n>Note here incel literally just means **involuntarily celebrate** and not as an insult.\n\nThis term needs to die. It was created by a teenager and should have stayed in that journal forever. The very idea of there being such a thing as \"involuntary celibacy\" is what causes the frustration and anger to begin with. It's a reframing, a violent one, of being single. The reason why this is so important is because the community we call \"incels\" are *not* after sex. We can acknowledge this by simply noting that so many of them have no interest in prostitution; if sex were the goal we should see a severe uptick in prostitution at all levels but instead we see the opposite, males pining very hard (called \"simping\") for females who meet characteristically unreal ideals. A girl in cat ears or fairy makeup. These fantastical desires do not match up with the interests of pursuit of sexual gratification and instead seem to almost repel it; the goal is not sex because why would one go through the effort of generating a separate series of persona to get something that is readily available for a little bit of money?\n\nThis is actually important because the unpaired in other cultures react differently. So for instance in Japan rather than becoming outwardly violent you have hikikomori events, people who become extreme shut-ins, and thus disappear from society. This impacts males more than females in Japan and just as one might talk about inceldom in the West these practices of shutting out society and blaming others are as prevalent in the East with just a different flavor.\n\n>so my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do.\n\nWomen do not. Male loneliness is a complex series of functions; while I am not a fan of talking about male loneliness for a number of reasons my understanding of it is that males have three major dilemmas. \n\n1. Males are measured by their partnering ability. If a male cannot attract a female partner in most societies *he* is the failure. This is not exactly true for females where if a female becomes childless and aged it is seen as either a sad thing or a situation regarding some kind of defect in personality or person but for males it's both a defect *and* a failure with no sense of sympathy. \n2. Male partnerships are more crucial for the social order. The West still has a very Nuclear Family buildout despite the times; what we now refer to on podcasts as a \"High Value Male\" is nothing more than a male who could theoretically support the nuclear family. That's it. It's very strange that this is still lingering; it isn't about how successful or masculine or desirable he is so much as it is just about fulfilling a now difficult to fulfill ideal.\n3. Male and female competition are not similar. There are two additional pressures for males: The first is that a male must be the initiator and the second is that the male must (effectively) pay a dowry. We've translated these things into different words but a male \"paying for the dates\" is the same as proving he has capital and obviously a male must show interest first and the female makes the decision to accept or reject the advances. This pretense in the social order creates competition between males that is severely more intense as one must not only overcome shyness and various other stops but also be aware of his surroundings and the theoretical other males in play. \n\nThis leads to a soup in which frustration boils over. The standards for male attractiveness have moved severely against males in general which hurts them. This is not to say that males cannot be attractive in general but that male attractiveness standards are so pointlessly high that they are impossible to attain; being in the top 10% is not just a pressure but a requirement now, at least they believe, and this generates a certain degree of madness because you have a community of people (Purple or Black pill, iirc) who literally opt out based on genetics alone.\n\n>we see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women.\n\nThis is because partner violence is reversed. [Women actually attack men in partnerships more often than men attack women.](https://aliesq.medium.com/extensive-research-women-initiate-domestic-violence-more-than-men-men-under-report-it-3bbaa4fbec9d) What really happens, much like the statistics above, is that women are *less likely to severely injure their partners* so in turn partner violence is much higher for women but reporting is much lower. I bring this up to give clarity to the situation; violent reactions from males and females are actually not uncommon *but* violent reactions from males are also a lot more deadly. \n\nThis also plays into the [trope that women aren't abusive](https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/women-as-the-abusers) when in fact that women choose *non-physical violence* more than not. This means that female abusive relationships, and female poor reactions in public, are going to be *physically non-violent* which means that when we normalize PNV as an alterative, [and even praise it](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3310235/Would-intervene-saw-woman-slap-boyfriend-Shocking-video-shows-strangers-ignoring-domestic-violence-street-rush-help-female-victim.html), we're already on the wrong foot.\n\nIn essence you're comparing how people tend to react and the outcomes of those reactions without measuring the actual reactions themselves. A man becoming *physically* violent is a problem but a woman becoming *verbally* violent is seen as a not a problem. Both groups actually don't take rejection well.",
                    "date": "2023-10-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5yytcm",
                    "author": "chicagotim1",
                    "body": "Your argument seems to be that if SOME women are able to restrain themselves from violence that means ALL men should.\n\nOf COURSE nobody should get violent over rejection, but some people, both male and female, do.",
                    "date": "2023-10-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17d3va5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Note here incel literally just means involuntarily celebrate and not as an insult. \n\nso my train of thought got kind of long but online I see how incels talk about how women don't understand male loneliness. Women do. many women, and take Japanese women, are single. Yet Japanese women are not violent. Neither, for that matter, are male Japanese who are single. \n\nThe problem is a personal accountability problem.\n\nsome incels talk about how society should be worried that incels become violent and so we should encourage women to lower standards or some bullshit. Its bullshit because even if women collectively decide to stay abstinence and not date, then incels that turn violent, the problem is not the women who refuse them but the incels that are violent. We see plenty of incels who are not violent. \n\nwe see some men who get rejected turn violent ie woman says no and gets stabbed. We rarely see it in women. \n\nTherefore all the problems with incels who are violent lies not with a society that should encourage women to be less picky but to encourage men to have some anger management. I don't know how to fix it but its not in telling women to date more..\n\nSome women are single and happy. I've seen lots of studies where it says women are happier single",
                    "date": "2023-10-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: if women can not turn violent when rejected, so can men. some men being lonely is a personal problem",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17d3va5/cmv_if_women_can_not_turn_violent_when_rejected/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k5z5xwr",
                    "author": "sordidennui",
                    "body": "Lmao I got beat with a wooden spoon by one of my ex's for breaking up with her. Plenty of women turn violent, just take a look at those unreported DV stats, they just wait until they know the person won't hit them back.",
                    "date": "2023-10-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17d3va5"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "17eqwi2",
                "author": "IronSmithFE",
                "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                "date": "2023-10-23",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k64zmxu",
                "author": "MrGraeme",
                "body": ">to change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.\n\nNetworking.\n\nGo to expensive college? You get to mingle with a bunch of rich people and high performers with a wide-variety of interests and backgrounds. When you graduate, you can leverage the relationship with those people to help you succeed in your career, business, or anything else.\n\nGo to a cheap technical school? You'll mingle with lower-income people, those who have achieved less, and have narrower interests and backgrounds. \n\nThat alone is a major benefit of going to an expensive school vs a cheap school.",
                "date": "2023-10-23",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
            },
            {
                "id": "k6540gp",
                "author": "IronSmithFE",
                "body": "i agree that more expensive institutions are more likely to give you a networking advantage. for that, i must \u0394.\n\nare there other options that aren't as expensive but nearly as good? country clubs and the like?",
                "date": "2023-10-23",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k64zmxu"
            },
            {
                "id": "k6545tx",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/MrGraeme ([108\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/MrGraeme)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-10-23",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k6540gp"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k64xw6t",
                    "author": "DrCornSyrup",
                    "body": "College is useful for networking, especially at an ivy league where a poor but talented student can meet many old-money wealthy people to do business with later",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k64z1wp",
                    "author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
                    "body": ">beyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nLMAO way to bury the lede\n\nWant to tell us what you're really here to talk about?",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k651ahs",
                    "author": "IntoMyPocket",
                    "body": "I mean I'll die on the original hill if you want.\n\n50,000,000 Americans in $1,500,000,000,000 \"life ruining\" debt that every graduating class  since the late 80s/early 90s has said is crushing them financially is why I would discourage young people from going to unless it was absolutely unavoidable.\n\nThis is not my take on magic wand \"how things should be\" or what I think is fair or just.  You see the landscape just as well as I do and OP got me in the first half, college is a trap.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k64z1wp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k64z7l6",
                    "author": "Kazthespooky",
                    "body": "Can you clarify your view?\n\nYour opinion, it's not worth going to an \"expensive\" college unless it's something that requires an expensive college degree? \n\nIs this Tautological or am I missing something? Reasons to go to an expensive college...you don't have to pay for it because your family is wealthy...you are going to an expensive college that will give you access to opportunities that will cover the expense...you got a full ride scholarship and have an opportunity to play pro sports. \n\nLike what's the counter argument you're expecting to hear?",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65011g",
                    "author": "LetterheadNo1752",
                    "body": "I went to an expensive college, (though fortunately not expensive for me or my family since someone else paid for it), and I 100% credit it for the successful career I've enjoyed as a result. There's no way I would have gained the education, experience, and personal connections I needed to get my first few jobs after graduation if I had attended to a community college and/or state university.\n\nNot that you shouldn't do that if that's what's available. But I was extremely fortunate that I had a better option, and would have been foolish not to have taken it, even if I did have to pay for it.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6529zm",
                    "author": "DrCornSyrup",
                    "body": ">  personal connections\n\nThis is the only important part. But make no mistake about it, networking with generational wealth legacy admission students is basically a cheat code in real life",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k65011g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k650jo5",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "Why are you separating by \"expensive college\" vs. trade school vs. nothing. There are thousands of more affordable schools in that gap.\n\nAlso, yet again, university is not trade school.\n\n>i specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). \n\nThat's fine for people who want to learn a trade, which is obviously a needed thing and yes, can be, sometimes, a quicker path to a job, though many trades have years of apprenticeship required before you can make good money.\n\n>for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nThose are graduate schools. Yes, obviously you need a basic university education to apply to medical or law (or vet) school, but this sounds as if it's just a BA/S.\n\nEducation benefits everyone. The person being educated becomes more educated and has many more opportunities in general. Society benefits from a more educated populous. \n\nAgain, it's not \"expensive college\" or nothing. Go to a state or local school, go to a cc and transfer.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k655fna",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "> There are thousands of more affordable schools in that gap.\n\nwhat is affordable is relative. for some anything more than the most basic tech school is too expensive. for others who already have money anything less than the most expensive colleges are inexpensive.\n\nmy point is that you shouldn't force a very expensive education when there are plenty of good alternatives at a much much better price point. \n\nthe most expensive schools often deliver a worse education than the much cheaper alternatives but those expensive institutions remain valued only because of their name and networking opportunities.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k650jo5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k650owj",
                    "author": "Drawsome_Stuff",
                    "body": ">beyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nSort of begs the question. Are they institutions of government propaganda or do colleges tend to attract left-leaning people? The Right has been on a crusade against public education since the 80s. When you plant the seed that it's going to indoctrinate them, they're going to avoid it and it's going to become filled with left leaning people.\n\nOr does becoming more educated make people more progressive?\n\nIt also ignores historically conservative colleges (Ivy League).",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k654keg",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "when i was growing up in the 80s and 90s in a very conservative republican area everyone was told all through primary education that you must go to college. it has only changed around there in the last 5 to 10 years to where people are more accepting of the idea that college might not be the best option for everyone. even so it is still highly pushed.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k650owj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k651rmo",
                    "author": "automatic_mismatch",
                    "body": "It would help if you clarified what you mean by expensive. Do you mean a certain dollar amount? A certain percentage of your income? Expensive can be relative. A school that\u2019s expensive on paper can be paper can be cheap/free with the right scholarships. Conversely, if you are so rich money doesn\u2019t matter, an \u201cexpensive\u201d school could be nothing to you financially.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65246j",
                    "author": "Biptoslipdi",
                    "body": ">colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nThose of us who actually went to college were very disappointed when it didn't turn out to be a government indoctrination center and was just school but harder.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k652r1o",
                    "author": "DrCornSyrup",
                    "body": "If you agree with the agenda they are pushing then you will not detect the agenda",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k65246j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6527su",
                    "author": "joalr0",
                    "body": "I agree that college is expensive, and people should decide if it is right for them based on what they are looking for in a career.\n\n>beyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nBut that's nonsense.  People don't become indocterinated because they go to college.  They become \"woke\" because they are exposed to things outside of what they were tight in their tiny holes of existence that we are all trapped in and learn to be more accepting.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6533ey",
                    "author": "ghostofkilgore",
                    "body": "[https://www.gradreports.com/trends-insights/is-an-ivy-league-degree-worth-it](https://www.gradreports.com/trends-insights/is-an-ivy-league-degree-worth-it)\n\nPeople have studied this. Ivy League Computer Science graduates earn almost double the salaries of Comp Sci graduates from other universities. The jobs Comp Sci graduates go into typically don't have hard requirements for Comp Sci degrees. In theory, a person could do those jobs with no university education.\n\nThis isn't true for all areas of study. But I think it shows that your blanket statement of 'avoid expensive colleges' isn't true in every scenario. If you're going to study subjects like Comp Sci or Economics, the figures would suggest the expensive education will likely pay for itself.\n\nNow, I don't think graduates form these colleages are actually twice as good, or twice as valubale as other graduates. But the market is there for them and they're getting their money back, and then some.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k6576nh",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "> People have studied this. Ivy League Computer Science graduates earn almost double the salaries of Comp Sci graduates from other universities.\n\ni agree that is true. however, there problems with the numbers:\n\n1) students who can get into these high-end schools already have what it takes to earn a lot of money in most cases\n2) the actual education at these institutions isn't markedly different than at cheaper schools.\n3) ivy league schools depend on name recognition and rich networking rather than good education to remain on top.\n\nin most cases new grads are not at all prepared for the work they do right out of college except in tech schools but large corporate employers don't care about that or don't know about that. practically speaking they'd be better to look at tech schools for trained employees when they can. \"practical\" isn't exactly a good description for typical corporations.\n\nif employers and students weren't hoodwinked by college marketing i don't belive the income numbers would be sustainable.\n\nyes, you are right that income is much greater for those graduates but that doesn't change my view about how people should react given how they get those numbers.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k6533ey"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k653j6w",
                    "author": "Automatic-Sport-6253",
                    "body": "I knew a guy who went to Dartmouth to get a degree in philosophy. He was planning on going into PhD program later and go into academia but wasn't successful in that. Instead, when his father died and left him some money, he used his connections from Dartmouth to invest the money well and now doesn't have to work. That's one of the reasons how it pays off.\n\nExpensive colleges come with name recognition. You submit a CV with Harvard/MIT/Stanford on it and you chances of getting a job in tech jump immediately. Not saying you can't land the same job with Noname Town Community College degree but you might find you need to jump through some extra hoops for that. Is it worth thousands and thousands of dollars in debt? Maybe not.\n\nIf you want to go to academia in any topic you need to get in a very good PhD program which is much much easier to do if you did your undergrad in as good of a college. You want to study neuroscience? Good luck getting an access to MRI machine in a technical college. You are collecting reference letters? A letter from a well-known researcher at a well-known college is worth more than a letter from a lecturer at an average tech college (assuming they write the same things).\n\nBottom line, expensive colleges come with lots of perks. It's up to you to exploit it. Is it worth the money you have to pay? Well, it's impossible to quantify. You can still achieve the same professional success with a degree from a cheaper school if you are determined enough. And you can totally flop if you spent your four years at top-10 college partying and doing nothing.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k657sqi",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "i appreciate your perspective and i agree with your non-conclusion. it is all important information to consider.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k653j6w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65cddp",
                    "author": "Can-Funny",
                    "body": "You should CMV that it\u2019s all about the expense of the college.  It is more about the real and perceived value add of the college.   If you can get into an Ivy, it\u2019s probably going to be worth the difference between the cost of the Ivy and the large state university.  Because having an Ivy on your resume and getting the networking opportunities are most likely going to pay multiples of the cost delta.  \n\nThe people who I have a hard time feeling sorry for are those people who went to small, private liberal arts colleges that few people have ever heard of, yet charge 3x of large state universities.  I\u2019ve never understood the value proposition there.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65hb3e",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "if you can get into any ivy, you don't need to get into the ivy to earn a lot of money. they ivy might give you some networking but chances are that you belong to that class already and already have the ability to network in that world without actually attending the schools.\n\nfor some people who are not in that world but somehow manage to get accepted, it would certainly be of great value assuming they actually get their degree instead of dropping out in the first semester.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k65cddp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65i9mk",
                    "author": "TheSensation19",
                    "body": "(1) The cost of that expensive degree may be planned in their overall career budget. You're okay with $100,000 in debt if you know you'll make $100,000 in a few years. \n\n(2) You can network and build strong connections more at bigger colleges. Esp for big companies that pride alma mater.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65srt7",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "point #1 could apply to anything if you don't care about throwing away your money and waisting your time.\n\n#2 already has been pointed out and awarded a delta. there might be a good solution to this problem which i see as a kind of corruption.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k65i9mk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65txxf",
                    "author": "Xystem4",
                    "body": "I\u2019m really curious how you think my classes on the C++ programming language and the design and analysis of algorithms were government propaganda pushing woke indoctrination. \n\nYou must be a Python guy, I guess",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65xeu3",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "just because colleges push government propaganda and woke indoctrination doesn't mean all professors do that or that all classes do that. right?\n\nwhen i was in university there were several required breadth courses that pushed political wokeness and/or government propaganda. in one instance i strongly objected to the course to which the woke bureaucrat told me that it was required because the university had to produce well-rounded students. specifically, students who were okay with (or at least silent on) abortion, child transitioning, unusual personal pronouns, obedience to the rules is the same as morality, go along to get along, unionization, open borders, republicans are evil, social welfare, keynesian economics or even communism, if you don't bike it's cause you want all the polar bears to die, all men are naturally evil. \n\nin most classes, it wasn't that bad but it was a little in almost all classes. in a select few, the whole course was about those things specifically for those purposes. you could avoid some of it but not all of it. i also had some technical college and none of it was there. there were woke people there to get on everyone's nerves but it wasn't taught in classes.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k65txxf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k65wosa",
                    "author": "Osr0",
                    "body": "Reminds me of a news story I heard about a girl going to a $40k per year private college. The story was about how upset she was that she couldn't get more student loans (for that school)  to finish her degree. \n\nShe wanted to be an elementary school teacher.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k668akn",
                    "author": "Engineerwithablunt",
                    "body": "Idk why people are pointing out Ivy League schools like there\u2019s not a vast difference from community college price to state school price.\n\nIvy leave is out of reach for most people in this thread, so why even discuss it.\n\nPeople are wasting their time going to their big time state college when they can get the same degree significantly cheaper at a smaller college or even community college.\n\nI\u2019ve got buddies who somehow put themselves 70000+ in debt for a degree that could\u2019ve cost them 1/2 that at a smaller school, but they had to go to the big school because in our highschool you were a loser if you weren\u2019t accepted into the top 3-4 state schools or above.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k66aysd",
                    "author": "hightidesoldgods",
                    "body": "A lot of people have mentioned networking, but so far I haven\u2019t seen someone mention this aspect of networking: in our current job market, in many industries *knowing a guy* is what gets you into a job. That\u2019s an extra - and very important- edge into getting into a job, especially in competitive fields. You don\u2019t get that in technical colleges.\n\nTechnical colleges also don\u2019t have electives. People complain about them all the time, but if you\u2019re actually *smart* about your elective choices and aware of the needs of your industry electives are a good way to get your fingers in multiple pots in your field. I\u2019m a STEM student and what made a perspective lab look at me as a prime intern choice wasn\u2019t my background in science - everyone applying had that - it was my courses in science communication, legislation, and outreach - all aspects that are currently in big demand with many companies in my field. \n\nAlso, I don\u2019t know who your professors were - if you\u2019ve been to colleges - but one of the main reasons why these colleges are so desired is *because* professors have practical experience. So far all my professors in science are well-regarded in their field, published plenty of times for their work, and are cited by thousands. Professors are desired by colleges *for their practical experience,* professors teaching is their way of contributing to the college that\u2019s *literally paying them to do the practical work.* If you get into grad school you\u2019re actually doing the *practical work* alongside the professor, that\u2019s why there\u2019s so many hoops to jump through about getting accepted by them. They\u2019re effectively hiring you to work in their lab. \n\nNow, this isn\u2019t to say that everyone should go to college blindly. Generally speaking I believe we should have a career-focused approach towards post-high school where we have youth focus on what career they want and focus on how it is people in said career got there vs \u201cwomp womp go to college.\u201d But, that said, there are many practical reasons why someone would choose college over tech, and it\u2019s usually because college offers a more well-rounded approach to getting into one\u2019s chosen field which - *statistically speaking* - consistently offers a higher salary because of the results of said well-rounded approach.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k66w2uo",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "> but if you\u2019re actually smart about your elective choices and aware of the needs of your industry electives are a good way to get your fingers in multiple pots in your field.\n\ni knew guys who got triple certs in robotics, industrial networking and motor controls in less than two years and for a quarter of the price that university students took to get an associate degree. any one of them could also audit a communications course at a university if they thought it would help. or better yet, they could simply pick up a book or textbook on communications and read it for 3$ to 50$. many of their employers offer continuing education benefits that will pay for courses like those at no cost. many of the guys who took these courses are earning over 100k 5 years out of school in easy fun jobs. all but one of the guys in my capstone class had good jobs lined up 3 months before graduation. the last guy almost failed his project and is still in a good job.\n\n> but one of the main reasons why these colleges are so desired is because professors have practical experience \n\ni've been to university and a little over half of the professors there were not good teachers when compared to the instructors at the tech college where i subsequently got my certifications. i absolutely hated a few of the university professors because of their poor attitude undue strictness and lack of care and effort.\n\ngoing to tech college was easy and the learning was so much faster. there was almost no fluff or administrative hoops or power trips. from 8am to 5pm monday to friday i could always walk into an instructor's office for answers or advice without an appointment and the instructors were always happy to teach. sometimes when i was working in the robot lab alone one of my instructors would come in and shoot the shit with me or help me figure out some new piece of equipment that they hadn't used yet. not only was it staggeringly less expensive but the class sizes were much smaller (8 to 20 students typically in my department).\n\ncommunity colleges and tech colleges don't deserve the reputations given them by universities. it's not just me saying this but everyone i know who has done some of both. almost all of what i learned in tech college wasn't even offered at the university that i left.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k66aysd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k66ij2u",
                    "author": "fugsco",
                    "body": "I knew this clown wouldn't be able to keep it on the rails",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k66jpn5",
                    "author": "Square-Dragonfruit76",
                    "body": "***If you aren't rich, you mean. Rich people go to college for prestige.\n\nThis post also depends on people going to college in order to have future work benefits. But that is not true for everyone. some people just highly value education. In Judaism, for instance, being educated is one of the most important things you can do. This is part of why there is a stereotype of so many doctors and lawyers being Jewish actually, because education is so highly prioritized.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k66n0jg",
                    "author": "AcademicDark4705",
                    "body": "I agree that if you\u2019re not going into a field that requires big fancy connections (areas like nursing, teaching, social services) you definitely should not be going to an expensive school. I know so many people who take out $100k+ in loans for a degree that would hold just as much weight from anywhere else, for a job that pays like $50k/year.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k672gdl",
                    "author": "Specialist_Bad_7142",
                    "body": "I have an Associate and Bachelor degree. The AA didn\u2019t cost much and I made decent money. The BS cost money and I do make considerably more. However, I sincerely believe the quality of education I received while getting my BS has improved my life beyond money. It changed how I view, deconstruct, and digest the world around me. I put everything I had into my BS and got a lot back. \n\nYou need to decide what works best for you and what you\u2019d like to attain in your career. If you have plans to ascend the latter in your field, you may very well hit a ceiling without a bachelors or masters degree. It\u2019s not always that way, but I see it frequently enough it\u2019s worth pointing out. It\u2019s also never too late to get a bachelors later, but it\u2019s not easy.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k67t0ot",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "> It changed how I view, deconstruct, and digest the world around me. I put everything I had into my BS and got a lot back.\n\ni am sure it was of emotional value to you on top of the additional money you've made and will make. i would like to point out that you could say that about traveling the world, learning languages, reading important books, taking psychedelics, having children or meeting your hero losing a family member to cancer, going homeless or having a near-death experience. i believe everyone has these things in their life that shift their perspective with or without university. no matter how horrible the experience or how costly the lesson, it is rare that people look back with regret so long as they feel like they learned a life lesson. the fact that you had such an experience at university doesn't mean it wouldn't have happened by some other means and it is also possible that some other experience might have been much more rewarding had you made different choices.\n\ni don't want to po-po your life lessons because i am happy that you had that experience and especially because you earned more money on top of those experiences. however, i am also earning more money than i was before i got certifications at a technical college and i also had life-changing experiences in that period of my life. the question isn't then if you can benefit from university but what is better for most people in the long run. i believe that as good as university has been to many people, most people would have been better off getting their education from less expensive institutions or by some other means.\n\nso far the only undeniable point for expensive colleges has been the networking opportunities they offer which you really can't get at a community college.",
                    "date": "2023-10-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k672gdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k67yy2d",
                    "author": "jiffysdidit",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t understand university degrees that aren\u2019t for your job\nGonna be an engineer do engineering, gonna be a nurse do nursing, makes sense ( I went to a technical college to train for the specific thing I do)\n\u201c I did gender studies\u201d I\u2019m like cool I\u2019m sure starbucks/Maccas does on the job training why did u wait four years and have debt",
                    "date": "2023-10-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k684nnh",
                    "author": "Shawaii",
                    "body": "A four-year degree shows rigor.  Employers know that you worked hard and earned a degree.  \"Expensive\" is relative.  I got a Civil Engineering degree from the local public university and have done very well.  I don't remember what I paid 30 years ago, but tuition is a bit over $5k per semester today.\n\nMany of my former classmates form the core of our local construction industry and our colleagues from more prestigious schools are seen as equals.  That being said, I'm preparing to swnd my kids off to more prestigious schools, where they will create their own  network.\n\nI have also worked with people with two-year technical degrees.  Some were great and some were way over their head.  Some with no schooling beyond high school run circles around all of us.",
                    "date": "2023-10-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k68xrm3",
                    "author": "justSomeDumbEngineer",
                    "body": "My job (programmer) does not require a degree but a degree can really help with getting the work visa.",
                    "date": "2023-10-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k694dsm",
                    "author": "Better-Revolution570",
                    "body": "The only reason I didn't go to a community college before going to a university to get my bachelor's degree is because I went to a cheap private religious university that had the church subsidizing some of my tuition expenses, so it was as cheap as a community college in my area anyways.\n\nI think everyone who wants to go get a bachelor's degree or higher who doesn't have a shitton of money laying around should absolutely start by getting an associate's degree at a community college and then moving on to a university that has an established program with that same community college. Way, way cheaper, and if you end up stopping at the associate's degree, you don't waste money in the process.",
                    "date": "2023-10-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17eqwi2",
                    "author": "IronSmithFE",
                    "body": "for example of why some people must go to expensive universities, you cannot get a license to practice medicine without a medical degree from a college. you cannot legally practice some medicine without such a degree. practicing law is another case where you must have a degree to practice with rare exceptions. civil engineers also need an expensive university education by law.\n\nthere are some benefits to going to college for other occupations that universities will accentuate in their sales pitches but the reality is that you can get most of those benefits to a much greater degree with other methods of training and education outside of expensive colleges and universities.\n\ni specify \"expensive\" colleges because cheaper technical colleges often have very efficient training programs that you can complete in a year (vs 2 to 6). the reason they can be so efficient is because they don't have all the expensive bureaucracy and they don't get involved in time-consuming publishing and expensive research. the instructors in technical colleges always have practical experience and are often accomplished in their fields and actually want to be training people in those fields which is the exact opposite of what happens in expensive universities where professors must teach in order to keep their university research jobs.\n\nbeyond all of that, colleges have become institutions of government propaganda and toxic woke indoctrination that does the opposite of preparing students for success and independent thought.\n\nto change my view you might show me how the benefits of expensive college are worth the cost versus the alternatives.",
                    "date": "2023-10-23",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "cmv: if you aren't required to have an expensive college degree for your occupational license you should avoid going to an expensive college.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17eqwi2/cmv_if_you_arent_required_to_have_an_expensive/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k699rxx",
                    "author": "atom-wan",
                    "body": "On average, people with college degrees earn between 13-35k more than those without. Sure there's a lot of outliers in people that didn't choose practical degrees but college by and large pays for itself even though it's expensive.",
                    "date": "2023-10-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17eqwi2"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "17shckw",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k8qbfpw",
                "author": "quantum_dan",
                "body": "Both we and ancient peoples start from observed facts, and the reliability of that hasn't changed.  The Ancient Greeks knew the Earth was round, by the way (as have most educated people since) - using sound reasoning from observed facts.  That gravity exists, the principle of buoyancy, and now that we can directly observe it, that the Earth orbits the sun - these can't be false unless all human perception is false.\n\nWith more involved empirical belief, there's a crucial structural difference (compared to the silly variety of ancient beliefs; there were plenty of competent investigators with solid reasoning): to accept a hypothesis, we require it to predict different phenomena.  None of the silly-type beliefs could do that with any reliability.  The non-silly ones were, at worst, a worse approximation than our modern understanding, but we know that our modern understanding is approximate.\n\nAnd for more philosophical beliefs, a lot of ancient thought is quite well-regarded today.  Plenty of reasoning works on principles you can find in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, the Epicureans.\n\nThe common theme to non-silly ancient beliefs is that they were tested against experience and analyzed with sound reasoning.  What we do today is just a more refined version.",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": "17shckw"
            },
            {
                "id": "k8qgdlh",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": ">The non-silly ones were, at worst, a worse approximation than our modern understanding,\n\nThis is a good point. They may have been wrong in many ways but empirical science had them on the right track so it may still today. !delta",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "k8qbfpw"
            },
            {
                "id": "k8qggy4",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/quantum_dan ([90\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/quantum_dan)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k8qgdlh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qb1r2",
                    "author": "coral_Hausa",
                    "body": "on the bright side, we've got 9 / 11 wrong!",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qcbbv",
                    "author": "robtharedmd",
                    "body": "A lot of what they said was in fact correct. \n\n\u201cThe earliest documented mention of the concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers. In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference.\u201d\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#:~:text=The%20earliest%20documented%20mention%20of,and%20calculated%20the%20Earth's%20circumference.\n\nEven modern religions date back several thousand years.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qcbpn",
                    "author": "toxicroach1",
                    "body": "Yeah, bud. That's how science works and that's what's awesome about it. You approach truth, you never quite get there.\n\nBut, I think it's fair to say the people who can build iPhones, genetically engineer stuff, and send people to the moon probably have a better grip on physical reality than Plato did.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qdta7",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "You're aware we've known the earth was round for most of human history, right? We even got pretty close as to how large it is.\n\nYes, we are certainly wrong about some things. But not everything. Just like someone in the past knew the earth was roundish and knew approximately how large it was, we know that the earth is an oblate spheroid and are pretty confident as to how large it is. It's not that we're wrong, it's that we're inexact.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qh2iy",
                    "author": "goodknight94",
                    "body": "Human history is over 200000 years. We didn\u2019t know it was round",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k8qdta7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qdwqj",
                    "author": "Its_A_Samsquatch",
                    "body": "Let me give you an example- I believe, like the vast majority of people, that the earth revolves around the sun. If you go back, say, 100 years, there would be a much higher percentage of people on earth who believe something different. \n\nBy that logic I would say, broadly speaking, a \"modern belief\" is more likely to be correct than an ancient one. \n\nAny modern belief that differs from the norm is *probably* going to have to compete against the already existing scientific knowledge that most beliefs are based on.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qeeu7",
                    "author": "AidosKynee",
                    "body": "Are you familiar with Isaac Aasimov's essay [The Relativity of Wrong](https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html)?\n\n> This particular thesis was addressed to me a quarter of a century ago by John Campbell, who specialized in irritating me. He also told me that all theories are proven wrong in time.\n\n> My answer to him was, \"John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qey2a",
                    "author": "thetransportedman",
                    "body": "You\u2019re forgetting the \u201ccrazy things people believed\u201d were created by spoken word and theory. Today\u2019s science is created by the scientific method to reject null hypotheses instead of just fabricating",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qxpo4",
                    "author": "Noodlesh89",
                    "body": "Doesn't today's science also begin with theory and spoken?",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qey2a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qfjbs",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "The only thing I\u2019d argue is that as time goes on, our tools for observation and discovery have vastly improved.\n\nFor example, thousands of years ago, we had to use abstract mathematical theories to \u201cprove\u201d that the earth was round. Now we can build a spaceship and literally see it ourselves.\n\nSame goes for space telescopes, microscopes, technology that can read different waves and frequencies, etc.\n\nI\u2019m sure we still have a bunch of stuff that\u2019s wrong or undiscovered, but there\u2019s a lot less abstract theorizing than there was thousands of years ago, because we have the technology to actually observe things with our own two eyes.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qgv2r",
                    "author": "Wolfgang-Warner",
                    "body": "Existential crises are statistically unlikely to be right.\n\nMust you be *all knowing* to feel ok? If not, the precise % of knowledge you have is no big deal, and if some % of what you think you know is wrong, it's no big deal.\n\nIt's far more fun to embrace the \"surprise me\" nature of unfolding reality. Would you want it any other way?",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qiy69",
                    "author": "goodknight94",
                    "body": "Yeah science is never quite \u201cright\u201d. Isaac Newton \u201cproved\u201d the conservation of mass. Until Einstein showed mass could be converted into energy. But for most practical purposes, you can assume conservation of mass and it is extremely useful in engineering. We may someday find a more fundamental truth than Einsteins e=mc2. Almost every scientific idea requires some assumptions.\n\nThe idea that we will ever find the fundamental truths of the universe is far fetched. But science still provides a lot of tools and is worthwhile to keep pursuing. \n\nMath in the other hand does have real proofs and it\u2019s not subject to new observations in nature. Many mathematics have remained unchanged for thousands of years.2+2 will always equal 4",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8wbwzl",
                    "author": "astar58",
                    "body": "When I was in the third grade someone pointed out me that 1+1=10.  I think the current truth may be closer to {}+{}={{}}\n\nLately we have fun saying 10=\u03c0\n\nDifferent bases and we now like to use irrational bases for fun.  But some of our oldest math uses base 60.  And now you know why there are 60 seconds in a minute.\n\nI personally see the 2+2 argument in creepy letters to the editor.  Sort of the idea the arabs were smarter than us I guess. /s",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qiy69"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qj3tb",
                    "author": "Individual_Hunt_4710",
                    "body": "I think this might be a logical fallacy. Humans started out being correct about very few things. Over time, we generally got more and more correct. most things deemed \"correct\" that should be considered \"incorrect\" are already considered incorrect. We might be wrong about certain things, like the nature of consciousness or quantum mechanics, but we have most things figured out.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qy6ci",
                    "author": "Noodlesh89",
                    "body": "I'm not sure we can say that. Knowing how much we know is correct or incorrect would first require omnipotence, otherwise we only think we know what is correct or incorrect, just as people would have eons ago.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qj3tb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qlvlg",
                    "author": "HistoryDave-22",
                    "body": "First off, there are degrees of wrong, and we may be wrong on small details rather than big picture. Others have already pointed this out.\n\nSecond, I think modern theories are less likely to be wrong because we have better ability to collect and analyze information to support theories today.\n\nAs a very simplistic example of this, consider the beginning of the Bible (admittedly, this is more mythology than science, but let me explain). That seven-day creation story, amongst other things, is an attempt to explain why the sky is blue and it rains. It explains that God created the atmosphere to separate the \"waters below\" (the ocean) from the \"waters above.\"\n\nI think this is ingenious, frankly (though also totally wrong). It explains why the sky is blue -- we're looking up at the underside of a big ocean in the sky. It explains why it rains -- sometimes that big ocean in the sky springs a leak.\n\nWe've been to space, now. We're not going to be wrong about the existence of outer space in the way that the ancient Hebrews were wrong about the existence of the giant ocean in the sky, because they took their best guess about something they'd never traveled to.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qlx0m",
                    "author": "fox-mcleod",
                    "body": "I think why you\u2019re stressing about it is that you haven\u2019t heard of \u201cwronger than wrong\u201d. \n\nNot all wrong ideas are equal. There is such a thing as *more* wrong and *less* wrong. Todays ideas are less wrong than yesterdays. That\u2019s how science works. It identifies the wrongest theories and eliminates them. \n\nHere\u2019s an example of how ideas can be wronger than other wrong ideas. If I asked you how many lobsters there are in the world right now, would you know?\n\nAnd yet, if I showed you four guesses, could you rank them in terms of wrongness?\n\n1. 345,736,341\n1. 1,220\n1. 0\n1. -6",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8wcsc3",
                    "author": "astar58",
                    "body": "Nice",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qlx0m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qmjoe",
                    "author": "Advanced_Piano1062",
                    "body": "I think about this all the time and point it out to people and they don\u2019t get me!\n\nI work in medicine, and people are often dogmatic about doing the newest thing that was just proven in x or y study on the principle that it is \u201cevidence-based.\u201d I like to point out that 100 years ago, the evidence was that highly disfiguring radical mastectomies were the only way to cure breast cancer and smoking wasn\u2019t harmful. Which isn\u2019t to say those things were wrong for their time, merely that we should be humble about how our current behavior will look from the perspective of 100 years from now. \n\nI don\u2019t think it\u2019s depressing - I think it\u2019s cool to consider how far we\u2019ve come and also be humble about how much further we have to go. You can think or do what\u2019s best based on what you know today and still be open to learning that there is a better way to think or act that will be discovered.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qnk6k",
                    "author": "Beginning-Listen1397",
                    "body": "There are plenty of common ideas that are objectively wrong or factually wrong but politically correct. Years from now people will look back on us and be puzzled that we could believe so many obviously untrue things.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qo2jt",
                    "author": "Beginning-Listen1397",
                    "body": "Scientists astronomers and educated people have known the earth is round since 400BC if not earlier. They even calculated the diameter, accurately to within a few miles.\n\nThere was one church father around 300 or 400AD who thought this was ridiculous, the people on the other side of the earth would fall off.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qofgm",
                    "author": "brianlefevre87",
                    "body": "There's a lot of correct knowledge in tradition e.g. fasting can be beneficial. \n\nBut if you can't determine what parts of the knowledge are correct and which are wrong, you end up following a bunch of wrong ideas as well. \n\nA radar is useless if it's full of false returns. Militaries jam them to render them useless like this. And believing superstition works in a similar way. Blinding you from what's real with chaff. \n\nWhich leaves it as useful as a broken clock, still right twice a day.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qpwjg",
                    "author": "AnHonestApe",
                    "body": "Epistemology, logic, critical thinking, etc. has come a long way, even within the past 100 years. The ubiquity of the peer review process, for instance, is very new. \n\nThe correspondence principle is more at play than ever before. New ideas in science and academia rarely completely nullify or overturn claims that have scientific or academic consensus. More so, the claim becomes more specific, unlike times in the past. The chances are greater than ever that beliefs based on scientific or expert consensus are at least partly correct, though sure, we know that even the best ideas are not complete, but it doesn\u2019t mean they aren\u2019t right. \n\nThe utility of the Delphi method and other methods using expert consensus is also some strong evidence that ideas with expert consensus are at least in part accurate.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qq014",
                    "author": "MassiveScarcity5337",
                    "body": "Well what do you want me to do about that",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qr124",
                    "author": "Love-Is-Selfish",
                    "body": "This seems to be assuming that modern methods of knowledge and ancient methods of knowledge are equal, that man hasn\u2019t learned better methodologies since then. \n\nAlso, knowledge builds upon knowledge. Newton needed to know that the moon goes around the Earth before he could discover the law of gravitation. So it\u2019s not that ancient people were biologically less intelligent, but that they didn\u2019t have as much knowledge to work with. \n\nAlso, there are many ancient beliefs that are in fact right. Like, the Pythagorean theorem. Or the Roman\u2019s discovered how to make good concrete and structures that still exist today. Modern concrete is supposed to be stronger, but that doesn\u2019t mean their concrete was awful. \n\n>So whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong.\n\nHave you applied to this to your own modern belief that modern beliefs are probably wrong? \n\nBut the fact that someone else\u2019s belief was probably wrong doesn\u2019t mean your belief was probably wrong. Or the fact that someone else\u2019s beliefs is probably true doesn\u2019t mean your belief is probably true. The only way you know a belief is probably true or not is from the evidence for the belief itself. You need some justification to apply the probability from one group to a different group. Why does the fact that people were so wrong about many things in the past mean that modern beliefs are probably wrong? Are you like assuming that people are inherently probably wrong about their beliefs or something?",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qv0uo",
                    "author": "SoWokeIdontSleep",
                    "body": "I think that more or less applies to cultural beliefs, rather than scientific or mathematical ones like most people have said here.\n So it's likely that as far as scientific knowledge some things might stay the same, maybe we might have a better theory of gravity or dark matter or quantum mechanics that are more complete, but like Newtonian gravity, the basics will still be pretty useful.\n Morally and culturally I do wonder what things we do nowadays that might seem abhorrent in the future. Will we someday have perfect lab grown steaks without animals and therefore make our eating animals seem barbaric? I mean clearly this whole war against trans people is gonna seem future generations as backwards as the people who denied women the right to vote and black people personhood in the States.\n More to the point, how will we be the backwards boomers once we reach that age?",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qycgo",
                    "author": "Noodlesh89",
                    "body": "Regarding beliefs, many beliefs have been thrown out, but others have withstood the test of time.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qyyad",
                    "author": "chillychili",
                    "body": "Some things may be more right at one period of time than another. Moore\u2019s law (which is really more a law about cost, not technological development) is incredibly correct right now, but probably won\u2019t be in the future. \n\nWhat\u2019s correct may also be a matter of available information/context. We know the wider context of the past, but the people of that past knew the details of the immediate context that did not persist into the future. Hindsight is not always 20/20. Let\u2019s say that someone gets into a car accident on the highway today. Someone a hundred years into the future looks at a Google Map snapshot of that day and concludes that if that person took a different exit that day they might have been okay. What the future person might not know is that there was major construction on that exit ramp that day because no one bothered to archive construction jobs. The person today thus took the \u201ccorrect\u201d route that wouldn\u2019t fling them into a dangerous construction site.\n\nI\u2019m not arguing against your core stance, but I think there are kinds of beliefs that don\u2019t quite fit cleanly into your model.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qz11u",
                    "author": "Desperate_Climate677",
                    "body": "I think the important thing to remember is akin to life being a journey not a destination. These proto-discoveries led to the ones we have today, and they will pave the way for another one. \n\nIt\u2019s not as if we were 100% wrong every time; it\u2019s more like we created a model of the universe and there were little holes in the theory we all ignored, until someone came around (Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein\u2026) each will expose an important hole in our current understanding of things, and it will usher in an updated theory. \n\nAnd if we were to be right about everything and know all there is to know, what would be the damn point of life at all?  It\u2019s struggle and growth that gives life meaning, and that means there isnt an end of history, it'll keep going and things will probably get even crazier over time",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8r6kht",
                    "author": "sciencesebi3",
                    "body": "What? Eratosthenes calculated Earth's circumference to a reasonable precision almost two millennia ago. Pythagora's theorem still works. Al-Jahiz wrote about a rudimentary theory of evolution, way before Darwin.\n\nYou're dead wrong about science. The bleeding edge is constantly fine tuned, but basic ideas rarely change.\n\n\nFurthermore, even if you look at more abstract ideas like roman gods. What's the name of the biggest gas giant in our solar system? Jupiter. Even though we don't worship it, the simple association with such a large planet still shows parallels in awe of that name.\n\n\nIt's a fallacy to assume \"science is always changing and wrong\". A lot of this is due to improper publication and bias. A lot of studies are dogshit and published with 0 peer review. It's way harder to disprove something than to prove, because you have to track down the data and conditions, then perfectly replicate that several times.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8r8h2p",
                    "author": "Large_Pool_7013",
                    "body": "It's safe to assume we must be wrong about some things, both individually and as a society, because what are the odds that we're not?",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8rbqkg",
                    "author": "Curious_Working5706",
                    "body": "Science has been improving throughout the years.\n\nReligion is the same f-ing grift from thousands of years ago, just the name(s) of the God(s) have changed.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8ro7pr",
                    "author": "shitsu13master",
                    "body": "I mean all religious beliefs are wrong so that\u2019s a given. But science? A lot of science the ancients knew is still valid today so the science part I disagree with. Some things like the laws of nature aren\u2019t likely to be found to be wrong, maybe we will figure out circumstances where they just behave differently. That doesn\u2019t mean we are incorrect about them, our understanding just might be incomplete",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8rtc9u",
                    "author": "EmbarrassedHunter675",
                    "body": "You only need to make the decisions that get you through life. I think cosmology is amazing, but it affects my day to day not one iota\n\nAlso not all ideas of the \u201cancients\u201d were wrong - eg the idea that the earth is spherical ecial dates from at least 2500 years ago, and probably before. In ~350BC Eratosthenes actually calculated the size to a pretty good level of accuracy",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8svlwu",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "If we came to our beliefs entirely randomly then you\u2019d be right, but that\u2019s not how it works.\n\nThis is similar to the argument against evolution of a hurricane in a junkyard assembling a 747 plane. You\u2019d be right to think that\u2019s absurd, but evolution is closer to a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and there\u2019s like a sort of 747 shaped filter which puts things in the right place when they happen to hit the filter. \n\nModern thinking and science uses sound epistemology, we use logic to create systems which give us reasons to accept or reject claims. \n\nSo for example while we certainly believe some wrong things, the broad strokes are likely mostly correct. Like we believe the universe is 13 billion years old. More data may refine that to 12.9 or 13.1 billion years but I wouldn\u2019t consider that to mean our current belief is \u201cwrong\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8uf52s",
                    "author": "sajaxom",
                    "body": "Your central premise that most of the beliefs of ancient peoples are wrong is clearly incorrect. If they were, those ancient peoples would not have lived long enough to pass on their ideas. For a group to survive, most of their beliefs must be correct, and none of them can be fatal prior to being passed on, just like any other evolutionary system.\n\nTake a moment to write down all the things you think an ancient group believed that are incorrect. Then write down all the things they must have known to survive and build their society. Your second list, if you really think about it, will be far longer. Moving forward through time, true information tends to persist, while false information tends to die out, so we will only get further from having a majority of our knowledge be incorrect over time.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8waism",
                    "author": "jackneefus",
                    "body": "I agree with you, but why would this give you an existential crisis?  Now you are armed with this information, you can explore the secrets of the universe.  You would be surprised at how much unexplored territory there is.  This is the fun part.",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8whkx6",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Uncertainty makes me anxious",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8waism"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k91ssmj",
                    "author": "Butter_Toe",
                    "body": "We live in a time where silly social media articles are instantly considered truth. We have countless people who can't figure out if they have a penis or a vagina, and people who can't tell the difference.  I don't think people truly believe, I think they just go with the herd based on what they are told.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "17shckw",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k8qead4",
                "author": "IggZorrn",
                "body": "I will call your argument Schr\u00f6dinger's Santa.\n\nWhen I was 5, I thought that Santa existed. Today I know he doesn't. My beliefs about him were 100% wrong when I was 5. By your logic, this would mean that my believes about him today are wrong, too. This results in Santa being real and not real at the same time.\n\nWhy is that? Your first paragraph and the whole logic you apply in it are based on the assumption that there are things that we do know for certain today. Otherwise, you could not declare all believes of the past to be wrong. This directly contradicts the claim that you are trying to deduce from it, creating a logical fallacy.\n\nHere are your statements in paragraph 1:\n\n1. People were wrong in the past. \n2. We know this, because knowledge is better today.\n\nSince you need 2. to be true for you to be able to say 1., you can not make 1. the basis for \"all believes of today are equally wrong as those in the past\".",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 32,
                "parent_id": "17shckw"
            },
            {
                "id": "k8qgyvb",
                "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                "body": ">Since you need 2. to be true for you to be able to say 1., you can not make 1. the basis for \"all believes of today are equally wrong as those in the past\".\n\nVery good point! !delta",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": "k8qead4"
            },
            {
                "id": "k8qh1i0",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IggZorrn ([3\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/IggZorrn)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k8qgyvb"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qb1r2",
                    "author": "coral_Hausa",
                    "body": "on the bright side, we've got 9 / 11 wrong!",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qcbbv",
                    "author": "robtharedmd",
                    "body": "A lot of what they said was in fact correct. \n\n\u201cThe earliest documented mention of the concept dates from around the 5th century BC, when it appears in the writings of Greek philosophers. In the 3rd century BC, Hellenistic astronomy established the roughly spherical shape of Earth as a physical fact and calculated the Earth's circumference.\u201d\n\nhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth#:~:text=The%20earliest%20documented%20mention%20of,and%20calculated%20the%20Earth's%20circumference.\n\nEven modern religions date back several thousand years.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qcbpn",
                    "author": "toxicroach1",
                    "body": "Yeah, bud. That's how science works and that's what's awesome about it. You approach truth, you never quite get there.\n\nBut, I think it's fair to say the people who can build iPhones, genetically engineer stuff, and send people to the moon probably have a better grip on physical reality than Plato did.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qdta7",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "You're aware we've known the earth was round for most of human history, right? We even got pretty close as to how large it is.\n\nYes, we are certainly wrong about some things. But not everything. Just like someone in the past knew the earth was roundish and knew approximately how large it was, we know that the earth is an oblate spheroid and are pretty confident as to how large it is. It's not that we're wrong, it's that we're inexact.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qh2iy",
                    "author": "goodknight94",
                    "body": "Human history is over 200000 years. We didn\u2019t know it was round",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k8qdta7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qdwqj",
                    "author": "Its_A_Samsquatch",
                    "body": "Let me give you an example- I believe, like the vast majority of people, that the earth revolves around the sun. If you go back, say, 100 years, there would be a much higher percentage of people on earth who believe something different. \n\nBy that logic I would say, broadly speaking, a \"modern belief\" is more likely to be correct than an ancient one. \n\nAny modern belief that differs from the norm is *probably* going to have to compete against the already existing scientific knowledge that most beliefs are based on.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qeeu7",
                    "author": "AidosKynee",
                    "body": "Are you familiar with Isaac Aasimov's essay [The Relativity of Wrong](https://hermiene.net/essays-trans/relativity_of_wrong.html)?\n\n> This particular thesis was addressed to me a quarter of a century ago by John Campbell, who specialized in irritating me. He also told me that all theories are proven wrong in time.\n\n> My answer to him was, \"John, when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qey2a",
                    "author": "thetransportedman",
                    "body": "You\u2019re forgetting the \u201ccrazy things people believed\u201d were created by spoken word and theory. Today\u2019s science is created by the scientific method to reject null hypotheses instead of just fabricating",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qxpo4",
                    "author": "Noodlesh89",
                    "body": "Doesn't today's science also begin with theory and spoken?",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qey2a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qfjbs",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "The only thing I\u2019d argue is that as time goes on, our tools for observation and discovery have vastly improved.\n\nFor example, thousands of years ago, we had to use abstract mathematical theories to \u201cprove\u201d that the earth was round. Now we can build a spaceship and literally see it ourselves.\n\nSame goes for space telescopes, microscopes, technology that can read different waves and frequencies, etc.\n\nI\u2019m sure we still have a bunch of stuff that\u2019s wrong or undiscovered, but there\u2019s a lot less abstract theorizing than there was thousands of years ago, because we have the technology to actually observe things with our own two eyes.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qgv2r",
                    "author": "Wolfgang-Warner",
                    "body": "Existential crises are statistically unlikely to be right.\n\nMust you be *all knowing* to feel ok? If not, the precise % of knowledge you have is no big deal, and if some % of what you think you know is wrong, it's no big deal.\n\nIt's far more fun to embrace the \"surprise me\" nature of unfolding reality. Would you want it any other way?",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qiy69",
                    "author": "goodknight94",
                    "body": "Yeah science is never quite \u201cright\u201d. Isaac Newton \u201cproved\u201d the conservation of mass. Until Einstein showed mass could be converted into energy. But for most practical purposes, you can assume conservation of mass and it is extremely useful in engineering. We may someday find a more fundamental truth than Einsteins e=mc2. Almost every scientific idea requires some assumptions.\n\nThe idea that we will ever find the fundamental truths of the universe is far fetched. But science still provides a lot of tools and is worthwhile to keep pursuing. \n\nMath in the other hand does have real proofs and it\u2019s not subject to new observations in nature. Many mathematics have remained unchanged for thousands of years.2+2 will always equal 4",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8wbwzl",
                    "author": "astar58",
                    "body": "When I was in the third grade someone pointed out me that 1+1=10.  I think the current truth may be closer to {}+{}={{}}\n\nLately we have fun saying 10=\u03c0\n\nDifferent bases and we now like to use irrational bases for fun.  But some of our oldest math uses base 60.  And now you know why there are 60 seconds in a minute.\n\nI personally see the 2+2 argument in creepy letters to the editor.  Sort of the idea the arabs were smarter than us I guess. /s",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qiy69"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qj3tb",
                    "author": "Individual_Hunt_4710",
                    "body": "I think this might be a logical fallacy. Humans started out being correct about very few things. Over time, we generally got more and more correct. most things deemed \"correct\" that should be considered \"incorrect\" are already considered incorrect. We might be wrong about certain things, like the nature of consciousness or quantum mechanics, but we have most things figured out.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qy6ci",
                    "author": "Noodlesh89",
                    "body": "I'm not sure we can say that. Knowing how much we know is correct or incorrect would first require omnipotence, otherwise we only think we know what is correct or incorrect, just as people would have eons ago.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qj3tb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qlvlg",
                    "author": "HistoryDave-22",
                    "body": "First off, there are degrees of wrong, and we may be wrong on small details rather than big picture. Others have already pointed this out.\n\nSecond, I think modern theories are less likely to be wrong because we have better ability to collect and analyze information to support theories today.\n\nAs a very simplistic example of this, consider the beginning of the Bible (admittedly, this is more mythology than science, but let me explain). That seven-day creation story, amongst other things, is an attempt to explain why the sky is blue and it rains. It explains that God created the atmosphere to separate the \"waters below\" (the ocean) from the \"waters above.\"\n\nI think this is ingenious, frankly (though also totally wrong). It explains why the sky is blue -- we're looking up at the underside of a big ocean in the sky. It explains why it rains -- sometimes that big ocean in the sky springs a leak.\n\nWe've been to space, now. We're not going to be wrong about the existence of outer space in the way that the ancient Hebrews were wrong about the existence of the giant ocean in the sky, because they took their best guess about something they'd never traveled to.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qlx0m",
                    "author": "fox-mcleod",
                    "body": "I think why you\u2019re stressing about it is that you haven\u2019t heard of \u201cwronger than wrong\u201d. \n\nNot all wrong ideas are equal. There is such a thing as *more* wrong and *less* wrong. Todays ideas are less wrong than yesterdays. That\u2019s how science works. It identifies the wrongest theories and eliminates them. \n\nHere\u2019s an example of how ideas can be wronger than other wrong ideas. If I asked you how many lobsters there are in the world right now, would you know?\n\nAnd yet, if I showed you four guesses, could you rank them in terms of wrongness?\n\n1. 345,736,341\n1. 1,220\n1. 0\n1. -6",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8wcsc3",
                    "author": "astar58",
                    "body": "Nice",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8qlx0m"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qmjoe",
                    "author": "Advanced_Piano1062",
                    "body": "I think about this all the time and point it out to people and they don\u2019t get me!\n\nI work in medicine, and people are often dogmatic about doing the newest thing that was just proven in x or y study on the principle that it is \u201cevidence-based.\u201d I like to point out that 100 years ago, the evidence was that highly disfiguring radical mastectomies were the only way to cure breast cancer and smoking wasn\u2019t harmful. Which isn\u2019t to say those things were wrong for their time, merely that we should be humble about how our current behavior will look from the perspective of 100 years from now. \n\nI don\u2019t think it\u2019s depressing - I think it\u2019s cool to consider how far we\u2019ve come and also be humble about how much further we have to go. You can think or do what\u2019s best based on what you know today and still be open to learning that there is a better way to think or act that will be discovered.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qnk6k",
                    "author": "Beginning-Listen1397",
                    "body": "There are plenty of common ideas that are objectively wrong or factually wrong but politically correct. Years from now people will look back on us and be puzzled that we could believe so many obviously untrue things.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qo2jt",
                    "author": "Beginning-Listen1397",
                    "body": "Scientists astronomers and educated people have known the earth is round since 400BC if not earlier. They even calculated the diameter, accurately to within a few miles.\n\nThere was one church father around 300 or 400AD who thought this was ridiculous, the people on the other side of the earth would fall off.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qofgm",
                    "author": "brianlefevre87",
                    "body": "There's a lot of correct knowledge in tradition e.g. fasting can be beneficial. \n\nBut if you can't determine what parts of the knowledge are correct and which are wrong, you end up following a bunch of wrong ideas as well. \n\nA radar is useless if it's full of false returns. Militaries jam them to render them useless like this. And believing superstition works in a similar way. Blinding you from what's real with chaff. \n\nWhich leaves it as useful as a broken clock, still right twice a day.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qpwjg",
                    "author": "AnHonestApe",
                    "body": "Epistemology, logic, critical thinking, etc. has come a long way, even within the past 100 years. The ubiquity of the peer review process, for instance, is very new. \n\nThe correspondence principle is more at play than ever before. New ideas in science and academia rarely completely nullify or overturn claims that have scientific or academic consensus. More so, the claim becomes more specific, unlike times in the past. The chances are greater than ever that beliefs based on scientific or expert consensus are at least partly correct, though sure, we know that even the best ideas are not complete, but it doesn\u2019t mean they aren\u2019t right. \n\nThe utility of the Delphi method and other methods using expert consensus is also some strong evidence that ideas with expert consensus are at least in part accurate.",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qq014",
                    "author": "MassiveScarcity5337",
                    "body": "Well what do you want me to do about that",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qr124",
                    "author": "Love-Is-Selfish",
                    "body": "This seems to be assuming that modern methods of knowledge and ancient methods of knowledge are equal, that man hasn\u2019t learned better methodologies since then. \n\nAlso, knowledge builds upon knowledge. Newton needed to know that the moon goes around the Earth before he could discover the law of gravitation. So it\u2019s not that ancient people were biologically less intelligent, but that they didn\u2019t have as much knowledge to work with. \n\nAlso, there are many ancient beliefs that are in fact right. Like, the Pythagorean theorem. Or the Roman\u2019s discovered how to make good concrete and structures that still exist today. Modern concrete is supposed to be stronger, but that doesn\u2019t mean their concrete was awful. \n\n>So whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong.\n\nHave you applied to this to your own modern belief that modern beliefs are probably wrong? \n\nBut the fact that someone else\u2019s belief was probably wrong doesn\u2019t mean your belief was probably wrong. Or the fact that someone else\u2019s beliefs is probably true doesn\u2019t mean your belief is probably true. The only way you know a belief is probably true or not is from the evidence for the belief itself. You need some justification to apply the probability from one group to a different group. Why does the fact that people were so wrong about many things in the past mean that modern beliefs are probably wrong? Are you like assuming that people are inherently probably wrong about their beliefs or something?",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qv0uo",
                    "author": "SoWokeIdontSleep",
                    "body": "I think that more or less applies to cultural beliefs, rather than scientific or mathematical ones like most people have said here.\n So it's likely that as far as scientific knowledge some things might stay the same, maybe we might have a better theory of gravity or dark matter or quantum mechanics that are more complete, but like Newtonian gravity, the basics will still be pretty useful.\n Morally and culturally I do wonder what things we do nowadays that might seem abhorrent in the future. Will we someday have perfect lab grown steaks without animals and therefore make our eating animals seem barbaric? I mean clearly this whole war against trans people is gonna seem future generations as backwards as the people who denied women the right to vote and black people personhood in the States.\n More to the point, how will we be the backwards boomers once we reach that age?",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qycgo",
                    "author": "Noodlesh89",
                    "body": "Regarding beliefs, many beliefs have been thrown out, but others have withstood the test of time.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qyyad",
                    "author": "chillychili",
                    "body": "Some things may be more right at one period of time than another. Moore\u2019s law (which is really more a law about cost, not technological development) is incredibly correct right now, but probably won\u2019t be in the future. \n\nWhat\u2019s correct may also be a matter of available information/context. We know the wider context of the past, but the people of that past knew the details of the immediate context that did not persist into the future. Hindsight is not always 20/20. Let\u2019s say that someone gets into a car accident on the highway today. Someone a hundred years into the future looks at a Google Map snapshot of that day and concludes that if that person took a different exit that day they might have been okay. What the future person might not know is that there was major construction on that exit ramp that day because no one bothered to archive construction jobs. The person today thus took the \u201ccorrect\u201d route that wouldn\u2019t fling them into a dangerous construction site.\n\nI\u2019m not arguing against your core stance, but I think there are kinds of beliefs that don\u2019t quite fit cleanly into your model.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8qz11u",
                    "author": "Desperate_Climate677",
                    "body": "I think the important thing to remember is akin to life being a journey not a destination. These proto-discoveries led to the ones we have today, and they will pave the way for another one. \n\nIt\u2019s not as if we were 100% wrong every time; it\u2019s more like we created a model of the universe and there were little holes in the theory we all ignored, until someone came around (Euclid, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Einstein\u2026) each will expose an important hole in our current understanding of things, and it will usher in an updated theory. \n\nAnd if we were to be right about everything and know all there is to know, what would be the damn point of life at all?  It\u2019s struggle and growth that gives life meaning, and that means there isnt an end of history, it'll keep going and things will probably get even crazier over time",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8r6kht",
                    "author": "sciencesebi3",
                    "body": "What? Eratosthenes calculated Earth's circumference to a reasonable precision almost two millennia ago. Pythagora's theorem still works. Al-Jahiz wrote about a rudimentary theory of evolution, way before Darwin.\n\nYou're dead wrong about science. The bleeding edge is constantly fine tuned, but basic ideas rarely change.\n\n\nFurthermore, even if you look at more abstract ideas like roman gods. What's the name of the biggest gas giant in our solar system? Jupiter. Even though we don't worship it, the simple association with such a large planet still shows parallels in awe of that name.\n\n\nIt's a fallacy to assume \"science is always changing and wrong\". A lot of this is due to improper publication and bias. A lot of studies are dogshit and published with 0 peer review. It's way harder to disprove something than to prove, because you have to track down the data and conditions, then perfectly replicate that several times.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8r8h2p",
                    "author": "Large_Pool_7013",
                    "body": "It's safe to assume we must be wrong about some things, both individually and as a society, because what are the odds that we're not?",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8rbqkg",
                    "author": "Curious_Working5706",
                    "body": "Science has been improving throughout the years.\n\nReligion is the same f-ing grift from thousands of years ago, just the name(s) of the God(s) have changed.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8ro7pr",
                    "author": "shitsu13master",
                    "body": "I mean all religious beliefs are wrong so that\u2019s a given. But science? A lot of science the ancients knew is still valid today so the science part I disagree with. Some things like the laws of nature aren\u2019t likely to be found to be wrong, maybe we will figure out circumstances where they just behave differently. That doesn\u2019t mean we are incorrect about them, our understanding just might be incomplete",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8rtc9u",
                    "author": "EmbarrassedHunter675",
                    "body": "You only need to make the decisions that get you through life. I think cosmology is amazing, but it affects my day to day not one iota\n\nAlso not all ideas of the \u201cancients\u201d were wrong - eg the idea that the earth is spherical ecial dates from at least 2500 years ago, and probably before. In ~350BC Eratosthenes actually calculated the size to a pretty good level of accuracy",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8svlwu",
                    "author": "physioworld",
                    "body": "If we came to our beliefs entirely randomly then you\u2019d be right, but that\u2019s not how it works.\n\nThis is similar to the argument against evolution of a hurricane in a junkyard assembling a 747 plane. You\u2019d be right to think that\u2019s absurd, but evolution is closer to a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and there\u2019s like a sort of 747 shaped filter which puts things in the right place when they happen to hit the filter. \n\nModern thinking and science uses sound epistemology, we use logic to create systems which give us reasons to accept or reject claims. \n\nSo for example while we certainly believe some wrong things, the broad strokes are likely mostly correct. Like we believe the universe is 13 billion years old. More data may refine that to 12.9 or 13.1 billion years but I wouldn\u2019t consider that to mean our current belief is \u201cwrong\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8uf52s",
                    "author": "sajaxom",
                    "body": "Your central premise that most of the beliefs of ancient peoples are wrong is clearly incorrect. If they were, those ancient peoples would not have lived long enough to pass on their ideas. For a group to survive, most of their beliefs must be correct, and none of them can be fatal prior to being passed on, just like any other evolutionary system.\n\nTake a moment to write down all the things you think an ancient group believed that are incorrect. Then write down all the things they must have known to survive and build their society. Your second list, if you really think about it, will be far longer. Moving forward through time, true information tends to persist, while false information tends to die out, so we will only get further from having a majority of our knowledge be incorrect over time.",
                    "date": "2023-11-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8waism",
                    "author": "jackneefus",
                    "body": "I agree with you, but why would this give you an existential crisis?  Now you are armed with this information, you can explore the secrets of the universe.  You would be surprised at how much unexplored territory there is.  This is the fun part.",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k8whkx6",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "Uncertainty makes me anxious",
                    "date": "2023-11-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k8waism"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17shckw",
                    "author": "ImpossibleSquish",
                    "body": "If we look at the past, we tend to shrug off the religions and science of the past as obviously wrong. No one believes in Zeus or Jupiter anymore, we know the Earth is round (at least most of us do), etc - most of the beliefs that ancient people had now seem to us to be ridiculous.\n\nAn ancient person couldn't understand their place in the universe - their choices were wildly inaccurate science or religions that no one else believes in anymore, whatever they believed we looking back at them can see how wrong they were.\n\nSo whatever you believe, whatever branches of science or whatever religion, you're probably wrong. In the future people will know just how wrong our current beliefs are.\n\nThis is giving me an existential crisis so I'd love it if someone could change my mind",
                    "date": "2023-11-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Modern beliefs are statistically unlikely to be right",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17shckw/cmv_modern_beliefs_are_statistically_unlikely_to/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k91ssmj",
                    "author": "Butter_Toe",
                    "body": "We live in a time where silly social media articles are instantly considered truth. We have countless people who can't figure out if they have a penis or a vagina, and people who can't tell the difference.  I don't think people truly believe, I think they just go with the herd based on what they are told.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17shckw"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "17ujao3",
                "author": "feartrich",
                "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                "date": "2023-11-13",
                "score": 250,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "k945aax",
                "author": "Superbooper24",
                "body": "I think BMI is as accurate as IQ is to intelligence. Like yea there is some level of correlation however, I would never use BMI to justify you are xyz, as there would most certainly be other ways to prove it. So in a medical or scientific sense, I would never use it because it has a lot of room for error.",
                "date": "2023-11-13",
                "score": 134,
                "parent_id": "17ujao3"
            },
            {
                "id": "k94id9j",
                "author": "feartrich",
                "body": "\u2206\n\nGood analogy, it's probably good in a general sense, but it does have large error bars...",
                "date": "2023-11-13",
                "score": -1,
                "parent_id": "k945aax"
            },
            {
                "id": "k94ijba",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Superbooper24 ([13\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Superbooper24)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "k94id9j"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k941qw2",
                    "author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
                    "body": "This is so highly contextual a view that I'm not sure where you're expecting the discussion to go.\n\nIf we supply examples of BMI being misued, you'll reply \"*That's just people using it wrong. That doesn't mean it's a bad metric.\"*\n\nWith that in mind - what does a *good* metric look like, if not one that is unripe for misuse?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 43,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9478fq",
                    "author": "ComplexityArtifice",
                    "body": "My thoughts exactly. Using myself as an example: I'm short but naturally thick. Not an uncommon occurence. My BMI has always read as being too high, even when I'm at a perfectly healthy body fat percentage.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k941qw2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k942mb1",
                    "author": "OmniManDidNothngWrng",
                    "body": "What metric are you using to check someone's health to prove that BMI is a good metric for someone's health? Why not just use that one instead?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94645r",
                    "author": "BigSocialistCock",
                    "body": "Because BMI is simpler, quicker, and most widely available as a starting point for people to see where they are at. \n\nThe main potential issue a BMI scale is trying to point out is excess body fat. Yes you could spend money on scans to find everyone\u2019s body fat percentage accurately, but that\u2019s not economical or practically feasible. Instead you can look on a BMI scale, see that you are obese, and from there talk to a nutritionist and get more accurate data on body fat and muscle mass makeup to properly address and take care of the issue.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "k942mb1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k942us7",
                    "author": "Ticklemykelmo",
                    "body": "In a recent doctor visit my doctor mentioned my BMI. He then went on to explain what my healthy BMI weight would be, followed by explaining I would be far more unhealthy at that weight than where I am and that the BMI scale is deeply flawed. \n\nI\u2019m going to listen to my doc and focus on losing some weight but ignoring BMI.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9433fp",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": "I've seen people argue that the overweight section of BMI (25 to 29.9) doesn't actually correlated with poorer health outcomes, and its well know that BMI is not a good measurement for people with a LOT of muscle.\n\nBut neither of those are unfair and neither of those vilify BMI.\n\nwho is unfairly vilifying BMI?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k945e3o",
                    "author": "BigSocialistCock",
                    "body": "BMI can categorize people with a lot of muscle mass incorrectly, however it actual does the opposite more often. There\u2019s a higher chance that someone with very little muscle mass and still way too much fat mass gets placed lower on the BMI scale despite being at risk for fat related illnesses (because the BMI scale doesn\u2019t account for fat %, and only total weight).",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 24,
                    "parent_id": "k9433fp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9439ux",
                    "author": "joalr0",
                    "body": "Perhaps the correct stance is that we shouldn't be using any singular variable to define good health?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 20,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9459sv",
                    "author": "mankytoes",
                    "body": "Because sometimes medical professionals need a quick way to separate out particularly at risk people. For example, it's used in the NHS to identify pregnant women who need extra support. They don't have the time and resources to do an extensive health assessment of every woman, nor would every woman agree to that. Obviously they don't just use BMI, there are other things like drug use, family history of pregnancy difficulties, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "k9439ux"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k943aa6",
                    "author": "GhostPrince4",
                    "body": "The problem is that it isn't standardized. My BMI is 26.9 but my body fat percentage is 17% (5'7 @ 171.6). BMI doesn't take into account race, gender, age, etc. and it is a simple 2 variable calculation. More data that you have the better in terms from a pure mathematical standpoint and a single symptom doesn't point to a disease or condition accurately from a medical standpoint.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k949zil",
                    "author": "Docist",
                    "body": "It is fairly standardized as a screening tool when a doctor makes a judgement after looking at a patient. They would look at you and immediately realize you\u2019re fairly muscular and anything that relates to BMI and negative health effects would not apply to you as opposed to someone with higher body fat/ lower muscle.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "k943aa6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k943dz3",
                    "author": "shenanegins",
                    "body": "I find it funny that they print your BMI on your patient notes at every prenatal visit, like yeah, OBVIOUSLY it\u2019s going up, it\u2019s not like I\u2019m also getting taller while gaining 0.5-1lb per week like I\u2019m supposed to.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9440fg",
                    "author": "phlemingoat",
                    "body": ">But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric\n\nIsn't that exactly the idea that most folks are objecting to? That it is a bad way to measure overall health?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9442ym",
                    "author": "Dramatic-Emphasis-43",
                    "body": "The problem with BMI as a metric is that it tries to find pigeon hole humans into a specific range when humanity is just way to diverse. \n\nSome people are just built different. They have different levels of metabolism, their muscles develop differently and are better at certain kinds of physical activity, people have different kinds of bone density, etc etc. as such, everyone just has inherently different risk factors. \n\nLike, someone could be doing everything right to maintain a healthy lifestyle and still have an unhealthy BMI (and not be an athlete), at which point, BMI is meaningless. \n\nAnd conversely, someone could have an ideal BMI but be really unhealthy. There is such a thing as skinny fat.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k945xmx",
                    "author": "Flamingo47",
                    "body": "They're not that different though. Unless you have an abnormal amount of muscle mass (maybe 1-5% of the male population, <1% of women) it works pretty well. Metabolism and bone density are always just excuses made by fat people who refuse to acknowledge their real body composition",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "k9442ym"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9443er",
                    "author": "Relevant_Maybe6747",
                    "body": ">BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. \n\nWhy are you only using one metric to begin with? \n\n>if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nunless you\u2019re an outlier. I\u2019m 4 foot 8 and my doctors don\u2019t know what I\u2019m \u2018supposed to\u2018 weigh because the majority of people my height are prepubescent.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 33,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94gs0w",
                    "author": "edm_ostrich",
                    "body": "Well, we can make pretty good guesses. 500 lbs is not right. 50 lbs is not right. And would you look at that 90 lbs gives you a BMI of 20. Even for outliers, BMI is pretty good.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "k9443er"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k945l9r",
                    "author": "kobayashi_maru_fail",
                    "body": "My scrawny ass agrees with you. My BMI is on the lower end of normal range, but I know I need to gain a little weight. And for the upper end, all the dudes using Shaq as their counter example need to hit the gym as badly as I do.\n\nIt feels like getting your FICO score from a free site: sure it\u2019s spitballing, but it\u2019s 95% accurate and people piss and moan about the other 5%.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k945lk8",
                    "author": "LochFarquar",
                    "body": ">BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, i*f they're going to just use one metric*.  \n>  \n>if you can cite scientific consensus, and *all you know about their health is their height and weight*.\n\nIt feels like your qualifications here indicate the reason for critiquing reliance on BMI. No one should be giving health advice off on just one metric or if all they know is height/weight. In what scenario would this be the physician's only data point? What about people who have normal BMI but other risk factors (e.g. smoking and heavy drinking are high risk factors for heart disease, even in people with normal BMI).",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 69,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94sssf",
                    "author": "bluestjuice",
                    "body": "Exactly this. Which makes sense when one discovers that the first real inroads into drawing up BMI tables were from insurance companies (i.e. organizations who were highly unlikely to have more detailed medical information on which to base estimates about their clients\u2019 health).",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "k945lk8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k945nt1",
                    "author": "Theevildothatido",
                    "body": "It's far the opposite: It's somehow actually used even by professionals regardless of how absolutely terrible it is. It wasn't even designed by a medical specialist.\n\n> But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nWhat also correlates is simple age. So why not use that metric then and determine health by nothing more than age? Everything correlates with everything.\n\nThere's one metric which is incredibly cheap to measure which is far more accurate: body fat percentage. My 14 euro scale I have at home measures this. Does it measure it up to extreme accuracy? no, but it's still more reliable to indicate health than b.m.i. by probably orders of magnitude with its inaccuracy and it's also faster than calculating b.m.i since I only need to get on it and it measures my b.f.p. by putting a current though my body and measuring the resistance so I don't have to measure my height.\n\n> Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nAnd yet b.f.p. is more easily measured than height nowadays with these cheap scales as I said, so why isn't there?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97dlnw",
                    "author": "AnotherBiteofDust",
                    "body": "Heads up. Your scale requires putting in your height to determine bf%.\n\nAge is also a correlating factor.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k945nt1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k945v9i",
                    "author": "spewforth",
                    "body": "BMI is a method of measuring the relative height to weight ratio that was designed to be applied onto *populations* for analysis. \n\nTaking any such measure and translating that onto the individual and saying the conclusions will be valid is wildly reductive. In large populations, you can make conclusions about the average health outcomes in correlation with BMI. For this purpose it is a perfectly fine metric. \n\nFor using it as a metric to tell one person they weigh too much? It is a problematic metric.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94657c",
                    "author": "Full-Professional246",
                    "body": "The core problem here is BMI is used for things it was never intended to be used for and isn't really good at. \n\nIt gets vilified because of the misuse it is has seen by medical practitioners in how they label 'obesity'.\n\n>Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative.\n\nThat does not mean it is a good metric though. It does not mean you can use it to make significant population level claims. That is the problem here.\n\nAll BMI is telling you is a ratio of Weight to Height. That is it. \n\nThe real problems come when you are applying this flawed but accessible public health metric to individuals. That is happening on a regular basis today. Every year in my wellness check, they calculate the BMI to tell me 'how healthy I am'. \n\nThe people who vilify its use are stating they believe *at the individual level*, it is too flawed a metric to be useful. When you have so many potential exceptions to the rule, it calls into question the rule itself.\n\nA case in point - myself. If you use the BMI - I am obese. If you compare the waist size to height for determining obesity, my waist is only 2\" larger than the high end of normal. So yeah - like most Americans, I should lose weight. But - not nearly the amount the BMI calculation would tend to indicate. \n\nBetter metrics exist for the individual and we should use those instead of BMI *for the individual*. \n\nResearch has also told us, people don't like doctors telling them they are fat so they avoid going. This avoidance of medical care has issues. We have doctors who overuse BMI to explain issues that are not actually weight related. We have doctors using this as a metric to determine joint replacements. \n\nThis misuse of BMI is contributing to this problem.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 22,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94uv0w",
                    "author": "ogjaspertheghost",
                    "body": "Doctors also regularly use BMI as an excuse not to provide treatment and tell people to just lose weight when there are other health issues",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "k94657c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k947rb4",
                    "author": "Bunniiqi",
                    "body": "The BMI scale was based off, and only included when making, white men, specifically white western European men, so unless you are a white western European man I\u2019d say it\u2019s pretty unreliable.\n\nNot to mention it was created by a mathematician, not a doctor.\n\nTo quote the source I\u2019m going to link:\n\n\u201cthere were big limitations to Quetelet's experiment. For one, all the participants were western European men. The experiment also had nothing to do with measuring individual health.\u201d\n\nSo it\u2019s a theory that people have suddenly decided should be the be all end all of health, when it\u2019s just false.\n\n[BMI is rooted in racism and discrimination, and everyone just forgets that part](https://amp.abc.net.au/article/100728416)",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94fybm",
                    "author": "Friendly_Fire",
                    "body": "We aren't using BMI based on what one guy wrote down in the 19 century. It's a simple metric, but a huge amount of modern research on a variety of populations show very strong correlations with many health outcomes.\n\nBMI is literally just weight scaled by height. Saying a weight of \"X\" is unhealthy is pointless since people's heights vary wildly. If you want to argue exactly where we should set the threshold for healthy/unhealthy, whatever, but the metric is fundament and useful.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "k947rb4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k947uhn",
                    "author": "biglipsmagoo",
                    "body": "I\u2019m an adult who wears a size medium and BMI classifies me as obese. I\u2019m most certainly not. I am thin. \n\nIt\u2019s just not accurate for a *lot* of ppl. It\u2019s too inaccurate for too large a population to be considered a good source to measure health.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94b2dh",
                    "author": "thaisweetheart",
                    "body": "what are your measurements? you are either realllyyy short or a body builder lol",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "k947uhn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9486h8",
                    "author": "Usual_One_4862",
                    "body": "I think criticizing BMI and recognizing its limitations is fine. I also think as a general health marker when used in the correct context BMI is acceptable to use. Regardless of what ratio of tissues constitutes the sum of a persons mass, the heart must still push blood through all of it. That is to say whether its muscle or fat the heart still has to push blood through it. Overmuscle can lead to hypertension just as overfat can. Obviously muscle tissue confers the advantage of extra glycogen storage and an increased capacity to use up energy in a work context. It's also important to consider ratios of visceral fat to sub q fat when thinking about obesity and increased risk of chronic health conditions such as type 2 dm. A person may be pudgy with low visceral fat and be quite healthy, a person with low sub q fat may have a large stomach girth with hard intra visceral fat deposits and be objectively less healthy, so judging purely on appearance in some cases is misleading.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94968n",
                    "author": "Can-Funny",
                    "body": "Using BMI as a health metric at the individual level is like looking at crime stats by race at the population level and then assessing whether the person standing next to you is a criminal based on their skin color\u2026.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k949xa9",
                    "author": "stiffneck84",
                    "body": "The vast majority of people who have a high BMI have it because of an excess of body fat. Yes, there are outliers in the BMI scale, but it\u2019s nowhere near as common as people want to believe it is. We have just grown more accustomed to people being obese, that just being overweight is mistaken as being fit. 237 lbs in the 90s was considered comedic obesity. It\u2019s probably one of the lower weights in any given room of random adults today. \n\nBody fat percentage would be more individually specific, but it requires more time and equipment to measure.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94a6rp",
                    "author": "237583dh",
                    "body": "BMI is a great metric for populations, but it's a poor metric for individuals. No doctor would ever give a diagnosis knowing only those two pieces of information.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94agoe",
                    "author": "Ramtamtama",
                    "body": "I think its vilified fairly.\n\nBMI only really works for a standard body type.\n\nPeople with a high muscle mass and/or large breasts will often come up as overweight even if they're otherwise the picture of perfect health",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96l6wb",
                    "author": "Earthsong221",
                    "body": "Yeah, it was created to find the average white European male.\n\nWomen are curvy. Throw in female athlete with more muscle too, and you're constantly being told you're overweight or obese long before you ever get to that point should you gain weight later on.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k94agoe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94b24f",
                    "author": "teddy_002",
                    "body": "my BMI is \u2018perfect\u2019 and yet i\u2019m severely disabled and have not exercised in years. my mum\u2019s BMI is \u2018obese\u2019 despite her being far, far healthier than i am and doing far more physical labour. \n\nit\u2019s not at all accurate, and wasn\u2019t even designed by a doctor.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97q98c",
                    "author": "Apex_Redditor3000",
                    "body": "the only severely disabled thing here is your brain\n\n\"bmi isn't accurate because I have cancer.  whereas my fat mom doesn't have cancer and is therefore healthier than me.  bmi is not accurate at all\"\n\nfucking LOL.  the fact that you think this makes any kind of sense is insane.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k94b24f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94b52l",
                    "author": "Sweet_Speech_9054",
                    "body": "The problem isn\u2019t that it\u2019s a bad metric, it\u2019s that more accurate metrics are hard to measure. You\u2019re right that bmi correlates to many heath issues but there are stronger correlations to things like body fat percentage or the amount of exercise someone does. It\u2019s just a lot harder to measure those things and everyone gets their height and weight measured very easily whenever they\u2019re at the doctors office.\n\nThe biggest issue with bmi is the outliers. BMI only accurately predicts health concerns for average people. It isn\u2019t accurate for a lot of people. It can cause issues with data analysis if you have to remove large portions of your sample or if a large portion of your sample causes a bias that can\u2019t be accounted for properly.\n\nThe example most people use is body builders who are very heavy but not fat, so they may show up in an overweight category that doesn\u2019t accurately describe them.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96bazw",
                    "author": "philmarcracken",
                    "body": "https://files.catbox.moe/jnbrr6.png\n\nThat shows the outliers are not in bodybuilder territory. They're in false negative territory",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k94b52l"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94b5zr",
                    "author": "felidaekamiguru",
                    "body": "BMI is flat-out inferior in every possible way. It's a formula, that is then applied to a chart. There's no reason every single value in that chart cannot be fully optimized. Yet, BMI is bad for short and tall people. Why are we using it? There is literally no advantage to BMI over a reference chart where professionals have weighed in on every value.\n\nReplace BMI with a chart with tweaked values and we're already better off.\n\nOn top of that, we can further knowledge BMI is merely an estimate of some sort, and go with a better metric, like body fat %. Then you could have something like an EBF chart (estimated body fat) but at least this acknowledges it's an estimate. The implication being you can get a better estimate or even an accurate measurement.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94c0y5",
                    "author": "llijilliil",
                    "body": ">BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric.\n\nIts a useful rough measure and as you say, if you are only going to use a single measure it and want an easy one then its a good option. \n\nThe complaints people have with it is that it is treated as a perfect measure and doctors and whatever else don't take things properly into account.\n\nFor average heights its fine, the very tall are deemed fat too early, the very short can be deemed underweight too easily.  Those that have broad frames, or are athletic aren't well represented at all.\n\n> But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it.\n\nBut it isn't used that way, as \"the main measure\" it is given a status that it doesn't deserve.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94hrub",
                    "author": "Friendly_Fire",
                    "body": ">For average heights its fine, the very tall are deemed fat too early\n\nIt's the opposite actually. BMI is your weight scaled by your height. It would be a perfect measure if everyone grew proportionally. Tall people tend to have longer limbs, not just scaled up frames. So they tend to cross the overweight threshold at a higher fat%.\n\nOutliers exist, but the concern over them is *way* overstated. Meaningful outliers are rare and its **obvious** who is one. If you're tall and obese due to muscle, you're going to look absolutely jacked. No doctor will get confused.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k94c0y5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94d4nm",
                    "author": "jaytrainer0",
                    "body": "The only thing that its ok for us to get quick general idea of where a sedentary person is. That's it. Once you are active it does out the window and it's completely inaccurate. I am about 5'11\"and 190lbs. I am 'over weight'. But if you look at other measures like the fact that I can run a 7 min mile, can do 75 pushups easily, 20 pullups, squat over 300lbs, have 11% body fat, normal blood pressure, normal cholesterol, etc. So is this an accurate measure of my health? Not in the slightest. But if I was the same hight and weight but sedentary and could do none of that it might be an indicator to look deeper, nothing more.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96v4pg",
                    "author": "bigcee42",
                    "body": "BMI is clearly not made for muscular people.\n\n5'11\" and 227 lbs here, firmly in the \"obese\" category.\n\nHave a 455 lbs squat and 555 lbs deadlift. Sure I carry some body fat, but my waist is narrower than my thighs because of how much muscle I carry in my quads.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "k94d4nm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94dair",
                    "author": "mattyoclock",
                    "body": "BMI is unfairly everything.      \n\n\nIt's an incredible tool, especially at the population level but even individually can serve as a great warning sign.  \n\n\nThat's all it is though, and some people, even physicians, will treat it like the be all end all.      \n\n\nI have a friend that's a semi-pro athlete and is technically obese.    You don't need an MD to look at them brielfy and realize that they are in fact, not obese, and barely have a spare lbs on them.   They have had several doctors \"concerned\" about their BMI and referring them to specialists.     \n\n\nBut those people are outliers, and odds are high that your BMI is accurate to you.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94f670",
                    "author": "Dootdoo123",
                    "body": "As with all guidance the government releases, it needs to be simple and dumb enough that everyone can understand.  The guidance the government releases is not meant for people who actually understand things.  It's meant for the lowest common denominator.  \n\nSo with BMI, you have a massive obesity epidemic.  Most people dont understand nutrition.  What do you do to get people to understand if they are healthy or not.  You make something simple like BMI.  It's easy to do the math.  There are tons of exceptions but it's good enough for most people to understand.  \n\nIf you actually understand BMI isnt a good metric for you personally then dont use it.  But for an average person BMI is a good enough metric.  \n\nThere is no one size fits all.  There are always outliers, like someone with 5% BF or the skinny fat person.  But BMI works for 80%+ of the population, and that's the population the government needs to get the metric across.  \n\nAnother false thing the government teaches is that a woman can get pregnant every single time she has unprotected sex.  No she cant, theres only a small window each month.  But the details are too complex.  So you give wrong info to get people into the right mindset.  \n\nAnother example is if you have unprotected sex, you are going to get an STD.  That's not true either.  Even if one person is HIV or AIDS positive it's still like a <10% chance of getting infected.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94wd55",
                    "author": "bluestjuice",
                    "body": "BMI predates the obesity epidemic, however.\n\nI don\u2019t mean the origins of BMI, I mean its functional use as a public health tool. \n\nI also don\u2019t think it\u2019s accurate to say that we need a metric like BMI to make the public understand whether they\u2019re fat or unhealthy. This tends to be something people have awareness of regardless of what metric is used.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k94f670"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94gwek",
                    "author": "Bulrat",
                    "body": "the problem with BMI is that is bullcrap.\n\nhere is why.\n\nJoe is 5.8 he has a \"normal\" bone density and a weight of 155 lbs. (good BMI or not is not relevant,  the BMI is crap) he has a n XX BMI  that for the sake of this is deemed the \"norm\"\n\nBob is 5.6 and hs a highetr bone denisty  and also 155 lbes,  his BMI is now significaly higher...and he is deemed overweight....he us NOT,  his bones are heavier,  his body fat ratio is the excat same but his BMI is higher....\n\nergo BMI is crap and not be taken more serious than what whipe of your boots",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94ie9a",
                    "author": "Anthroman78",
                    "body": "> standardized comparisons across different populations\n\nBMI actually isn't great to compare across populations.  If you have a population that's particularly stocky their BMI will be particularly high, while a particularly lanky population will have a lower BMI than expected, you often see this in cold and warm adapted populations.  We also have some evidence that some Asian populations may have higher risk as lower BMI's for certain conditions.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94ife6",
                    "author": "Lonely_orca",
                    "body": "I will try to change your view from another angle. \n\nIn the medical community, BMI is not vilified. I\u2019ve also never met a patient that argued with me about using BMI, among other things, as an argument for weight loss. \n\nIt\u2019s one of the main metrics we use to classify patients, along with age. Read any medical study, and you will see a BMI line in their first table. \n\nIt\u2019s one of the parameters we use for cutoffs for medical interventions. Such as bariatric surgery or weight loss medication. \n\nThe other good prognosticator is the waist to hip mesures. But since it\u2019s slightly harder to get the numbers, we overuse BMI. \n\nEssentially BMI is a great and easy tool. So easy that we might even be overusing it sometimes.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94imrk",
                    "author": "Charloo1995",
                    "body": "BMI should be a screening metric and nothing more. If a person has a high BMI, they should be sent for further testing of factors like A1C or body fat composition. And I think you are likely very open to that idea. However, BMIs are frequently used as the only metric, which leads to mischaracterization of individuals\u2019 health. \n\nAnother issue that another poster brought up is where the data from BMI came from. If the data for a BMI does not capture significant portions of the population, it is a bad model. \n\nTo your point that there isn\u2019t a better metric, true. However that doesn\u2019t mean BMI alone is sufficient to make policy decisions, healthcare decisions, or insurance decisions.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 312,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94kqpy",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "This makes sense, but I also think that if other metrics we have now don't cut it, we still have to make policy decisions. I think using less fleshed out datasets to determine policy can result in things like cherry-picking being encourages. Like I wanted to pretend that there isn't an obesity epidemic, I could easily find lots of \"data\" to support that.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k94imrk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94je8v",
                    "author": "RedshiftSinger",
                    "body": "Why use BMI despite its high frequency of individual inaccuracy when you could instead use bodyfat percentage which is far more accurate a metric for health regardless of body type and athleticism? It\u2019s not that much harder to do. \n\nBMI says I\u2019m 20lbs underweight. I have D-cup boobs and a shoe size with \u201cXN\u201d at the end of it \u2014 I\u2019m just tall and narrow by bone structure. Bodyfat percentage doesn\u2019t even put me in the \u201cathletic\u201d lower range (which is still considered healthy), I\u2019m on the lower side of the \u201cnormal\u201d range.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94k6mc",
                    "author": "General_Esdeath",
                    "body": "Widespread use of a bad metric is still a bad metric. Or if it may be more accurate to say \"widespread misuse of a neutral metric\" makes it a bad metric. \n\nBad data can be poorly collected or poorly analyzed. BMI use does both. Self reported height and weight are less accurate than medically measured height and weight. Studies have actually found childhood obesity is UNDER diagnosed using BMI. \n\n\nAs well, here's a quote or two from Harvard Health.\n\n>Should we stop giving so much \"weight\" to BMI?\nMaybe. Research suggests that BMI alone frequently misclassifies metabolic health, which is linked to\u00a0how much fat a person has and how it is distributed.\n\n\n>And there's another problem: current BMI definitions of overweight or obesity were based largely on white populations. Yet body composition, including percent body fat or amount of muscle mass, can vary by race and ethnic group. \n\n\n>The World Health Organization and the National Institutes of Health recommend different BMI cutoffs for overweight and obesity in people of Asian descent. Changes are being recommended for BMI cutoffs for other ethnic groups as well.\n\nAnd that begs the question, what if you are of mixed ethnicities? Full article  [here](https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-useful-is-the-body-mass-index-bmi-201603309339)\n\nSo yeah, I don't agree that BMI is unfairly demonized.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94kb77",
                    "author": "koolBroski",
                    "body": "Yeah, you do have to take it with a grain of salt. I know I should actually theoretically be a little low in weight. I seem in decent shape at 200lbs, but it should be more like 180. I think even BMI makes me feel better than it should, although it indicates I'm barely overweight.\n\nTBH the difference I feel at the various levels makes me think it's pretty good and indicitive of something. Overwight I feel mostly fine butcould be doing my health better. When I was obese I could feel my health actively getting worse.. it's pretty even.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94mqfu",
                    "author": "MRicho",
                    "body": "All good GP's and Healthcare Professionals will not use this as a stand alone.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94ql56",
                    "author": "tehnoodnub",
                    "body": "I don't think anyone thinks BMI is a 'bad' metric. People just say it's not good to use in isolation, which is your conclusion. Do you have references for people arguing it's a bad metric?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94qqt3",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "BMI is not a \"metric\" that any competent medical professional uses in isolation. \n\nThe reason people say that BMI is a bad metric is that lay persons use it in isolation.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94ruwj",
                    "author": "bluestjuice",
                    "body": "We can\u2019t overlook that one reason there is a lot of scientific research linking BMI categories with various health outcomes is because many researchers chose to use BMI as their variable rather than some other measurable quantity. That doesn\u2019t intrinsically make it a high quality measurement. The fact that there is less data available linking other metrics to health outcomes is a failure of researchers, and the conclusion to draw is that we need more and better designed research.\n\nUltimately, BMI functions as an awkward proxy measurement which is clunky and cumbersome when there are more directly meaningful measures that are also quantifiable and have better links to health outcomes. We don\u2019t actually need a quantifiable metric for whether someone is fat (or how fat they are).",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94rvnc",
                    "author": "Nice-Ad1989",
                    "body": "I believe it\u2019s wrong but in a different way. I think it\u2019s a halfway decent GUIDELINE but not the rule. I usually go off of BFP rather than bmi, but I\u2019m already halfway fit. But at the same time if I ran strictly off bmi, I would have to be around 165 lbs. which if I actually went toward that I would look sick. Instead, I\u2019m sitting around 185 ish but around a 8-10% BFP.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94tqb3",
                    "author": "LeatherKey64",
                    "body": "If it was only used properly (ie as an indicator for further investigation), there\u2019d be no problem. But its rampant misuse by supposedly important sources like the WHO make it a prevailing blemish on the reputation of public health experts.\n\nYou can go to the WHO website and it will tell you that if you have a BMII of 26, a height of six feet and a waist size of 16 inches, then you need to lose weight. It\u2019s an embarrassment. How dare they state things that are so patently wrong and then clutch pearls when people don\u2019t give credence to their every word.\n\nThis is the organization\u2019s fault rather than that of the metric, specifically. But this type of misuse is so common that I\u2019d argue the net effect of the metric\u2019s existence is negative.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94tw5q",
                    "author": "SharkSpider",
                    "body": "> Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight.\n\nYes there is. Instead of dividing by the square of height, it should be raised to a power closer to 2.5 or 3. Humans aren't paper cutouts and BMI ends up labeling overweight short people as healthy and healthy tall people as overweight.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94wlg5",
                    "author": "TripleOhMango",
                    "body": "I forgot who said it but it goes like this \"BMI is a great population level health metric, but not a great individual level health metric\".\n\nYes, it is correlated with overall health. Yes, it can be improved upon. However, with other stuff out there, then why focus on BMI?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94x3xs",
                    "author": "viordeeiisfi",
                    "body": "In the Army one of my sergeants always measured a high bmi, but he was obviously fit and had a 6 pack. I realized then that there was something wrong with it",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94xufa",
                    "author": "PuckSR",
                    "body": ">Furthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight\n\n[https://www.calculator.net/army-body-fat-calculator.html](https://www.calculator.net/army-body-fat-calculator.html)\n\nWe have this, which is what the US military uses because it is far more accurate than BMI and requires only two additional measurements which are rather simple and anyone could perform",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k94yeso",
                    "author": "rejectallgoats",
                    "body": "Fat people don\u2019t like BMI because it tells them they are fat. It is a fine measure for the majority of people. Going to the gym a little isn\u2019t going to invalidate it. People will bend over backwards to throw away science that doesn\u2019t match what they want to be true.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k950ne1",
                    "author": "Equationist",
                    "body": "Waist to height ratio is [far more](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0103483) [correlated](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0177175) [with health](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10250251/) [outcomes](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2021.726288/full) and equally easy to measure.\n\nThe cutoffs are also easy to remember: 0.4-0.5 for healthy weight, 0.5-0.6 for overweight, and >0.6 for obese. The 0.5 cutoff also results in a simple rule: \"keep your waist size below half your height\".\n\nThese cutoffs are applicable across races / ethnicities, including in populations where [standard BMI categories fail badly](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587%2821%2900088-7/fulltext), such as [South Asians](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168822712005116) [and](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144539) [East](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29136711/) [Asians](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0216069).\n\nThere's simply no good reason to be using BMI over WHtR, other than historical inertia.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k951ij0",
                    "author": "Crea8talife",
                    "body": "BMI's in the obese range are correlated with poorer health outcomes for some of the most prevalent diseases in the US--type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.\n\nBUT about 25% of people who are 'obese' according to their BMI show no negative health indicators of these top three--diabetes, heart disease, and high blood pressure.\n\nAND about 33% of people with 'normal' BMI do show negative health indicators when measured (early indicators of diabetes, heart disease, or high blood pressure).\n\nHealth workers sometimes look at BMI and may not be adequately testing people within the  'normal' range.  It's a poor overall measure of health.  This was discussed recently on 'Maintenance Phase'.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k951x4t",
                    "author": "RadagastTheWhite",
                    "body": "It\u2019s just overly simplistic. I\u2019m 5\u201910\u201d 185 lbs right now and squarely in the middle of the overweight range. I work out 5 days a week with some combination of weight lifting and cardio. If I dropped the 15-20 lbs of fat BMI says I should I\u2019d be absolutely shredded with basically no body fat and I\u2019m not even all that muscular",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k952krr",
                    "author": "Tacoflavoredfists",
                    "body": "Even as an Army soldier with a perfect PT test score, my BMI was supposedly high so I had to be taped on my neck, forearms, wrists, ankles, waist, etc, to prove I was within regs. I\u2019m a very very short Mexican woman that wasn\u2019t considered when creating BMI. It\u2019s not a universal application",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k952mcx",
                    "author": "FlynnMonster",
                    "body": "BMI alone is dumb. Also if someone is at the body fat levels that BMI means anything you really don\u2019t need their BMI number to tell you that they need to lose body fat.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95451y",
                    "author": "TheWorsener",
                    "body": "BMI is statistical not diagnostic. It's not vilified. It's misused.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k959sxz",
                    "author": "athiestchzhouse",
                    "body": "BMI IS GARBAGE.\n\nTrying to adhere to it in the Air Force almost killed my friend.\n\nMy friend was 300+ at the time 6\u20194. He was shaped like a monstrous warrior, but because of his waist he was considered obese.  \n\nAbolish its use",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95c9u2",
                    "author": "THELEDISME",
                    "body": "not exactly a proper counter argument, however bit of anecdotal evidence:\n\n&#x200B;\n\nI was born rather short, but with above average chest width, plus until few years ago I was doing lots of fight sports (up to 12h a week), I am bit worse now, but still I am trying to keep in shape. although I have rather flat stomach each of my new GPs looks in the papers and mindlessly tells me I am heavily obese.\n\nMy Bestie is taller by 10cm and bit of skinny fat, as you could guess yes, he is absolutely BMI-proper,  Doctor reads it off the shit, and is like okay, although he could use some training back then, cause his fat completely rolled over his belt.  \n\n\nWhere I am going with this is, I am not training much for the last couple of years, but my BMI has not changed one bit. When I was in peak athletic form they gave me shit for BMI, and when I didn't it's exactly the same. It's not a matter of few extremes, I was never bodybuilder, I was never a pro. Just got bit of a stocky genes, and my friends had bit of skinny fat build- still, unfortunately, better than what's normal nowadays.  \n\n\nOn the other note you have plenty of actual scientific critique online",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95d4lj",
                    "author": "Supraman21",
                    "body": "My favorite part of BMI posts is looking at the profiles of all the people that argue against it. It never surprises me.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k98mp69",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Supraman21 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Supraman21&message=Supraman21%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/-/k95d4lj/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k95d4lj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95jwpp",
                    "author": "tyrantianious",
                    "body": "Large frame skelete structures weight more and can hold more muscle.\n\nAnd by large skelete I don't mean \"big bone\" those people are just fat. As there are people build with wider frames.\n\nThe difference is only a 5-15lbs increase above the max healthy weight. Before it's considered unhealthy",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95m0to",
                    "author": "Tank_Girl_Gritty_235",
                    "body": "In short, it's not inherently terrible and the number of people it correctly categorizes is more than those it doesn't and it would not be an issue if it was used with the same significance as someone's blood pressure and temperature on that visit. Unfortunately the medical system is stressed and over-managed with bureaucracy so this one, tiny metric has become over-emphasized and categorizes people as healthy or unhealthy without the nuance and confirmation that it needs. It was never meant to be a measurement of health or even healthy body fat distribution, which makes its implementation as such even more concerning and frustrating.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95ou7u",
                    "author": "1836492746",
                    "body": "I feel like the opposite is true: that BMI is overly glorified. If health insurance providers are basing the price of their premiums off a measurement that doesn\u2019t apply fairly to everyone, that\u2019s a problem. You\u2019re right that BMI is accurate for MOST people, but it seems to have become the standard that is used across the whole of society and not just a general starting point.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95p5r3",
                    "author": "corakken",
                    "body": "There are too many factors that render BMI useless on an individual level. People who are particularly tall or short, anyone with a significant amount of muscle mass (also, people who have well below average muscle mass), many POC have different fat distribution patterns that the BMI system can't accurately account for, it can't account for the difference between cutaneous and visceral fat which have wildly different health implications. \n\nIt's fine to use it as a starting point, but it's not particularly useful as a measure of health for most people",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95rdh7",
                    "author": "palmtree42069",
                    "body": "In my opinion, BMI is pretty useless to determine health. If your weight is unhealthy, it's usually visible without calculating the BMI. Another point is that there are rigid borders between underweight, normal weight and overweight. It just doesn't make sense that 24.9 is normal weight and 25 is overweight. Since it was developed as a statistical tool, it fails to take the individual into consideration. Some people might be absolutely fine and healthy even though their BMI indicates underweight, while others struggle with their health due to their weight even though their BMI is in the supposedly healthy range. The BMI is good at making broad assumptions, e.g. someone with a BMI of 15 will almost always be underweight. But then again, if someone has a BMI of 15 you don't need to calculate the BMI to find out that the person is underweight.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95s7qv",
                    "author": "audaciousmonk",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not a metric, it\u2019s a qualitative indicator.\n\nIt doesn\u2019t tell you if someone is actually healthy or not, but it can be combined with other indicators to identify potential risks to assess / watch for.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95s8y2",
                    "author": "oldmomlady3",
                    "body": "BMI is terrible for measuring health metrics. I am 5'7\" and was STARVING myself, passing out regularly a few times a week from not eating, and I was weighing in at 148 lbs. I could not get below 148.  That put me at the high end of normal weight. BMI was literally invented by life insurance companies to help them charge people more for policies.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95u65k",
                    "author": "Desperate_Climate677",
                    "body": "BMI is a statistical measure that only makes sense for a population and frankly not practical for individuals",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95w3rv",
                    "author": "Itisnoteddie",
                    "body": "Here\u2019s a bunch of research that shows BMI is super flawed. Your fatphobia is showing. \n\nhttps://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/bmi-a-poor-metric-for-measuring-peoples-health-say-experts/\n\nhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2930234/\n\nhttps://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439\n\nAnd this one, although just an introductory blurb for an edition of AMA Ethics, has a great bibliography. \n\nhttps://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/whats-wrong-overreliance-bmi/2023-07\n\nTldr: BMI is useful ONLY as a way to track changes, not as a diagnostic tool. Medicine relies on BMI far too often, to the detriment of patients and their overall health. No, BMI is not, in fact, useful for public health BECAUSE IT GETS THINGS WRONG ALL THE TIME!",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95w6q6",
                    "author": "Itisnoteddie",
                    "body": "And no, it\u2019s not a good screening tool either.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k95w3rv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k95z7wx",
                    "author": "vilk_",
                    "body": "What percent of people with BMI over 29 aren't fat? Like, 0.0001%?",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k960dvb",
                    "author": "Annanon1",
                    "body": "BMI may work for some, but as a black woman with ass , thighs, and a robust chest, 5'7 175 pounds says I'm nearly obese. My stomach is pretty flat, my bloodwork is in a perfect range. I have a freaking stairmaster in my home that I use 4 days week. I'm not overweight, but BMI is based on a white northwestern European man, and number are reduce to fit what they think women should be. I have no desire to be the stick figure white men want their women to be so yeah...",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k963l55",
                    "author": "Asleep-Fee-9618",
                    "body": "BMI was made by a mathematician not a physician. The fact it\u2019s used is complete BS. Body FAT percentage is way more useful. A 200 lb hourglass woman with some muscle is way healthier than a 120 lb girl with a big gut, and no muscle tone.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96462a",
                    "author": "denys1973",
                    "body": "A big part of the problem is that a lot of average people think they are muscular and are really just fatties.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k965rrr",
                    "author": "Mobile_Eggplant_1764",
                    "body": "It's not accurate if you have alot of muscle. They should measure bodyfat percentage.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96ch34",
                    "author": "JeVeuxCroire",
                    "body": "Here is the issue with the BMI. \n\nSomeone who the BMI classifies as either overweight or obese goes to the doctor for back pain. The doctor tells them that this is common for people who are overweight and encourages them to go on a diet. They're in *a lot* of pain and they think it's more serious than that, so they get a second opinion from a different doctor. Then a third, and maybe more. \n\nEventually, a doctor listens and orders some tests and diagnoses them with a slipped disc. \n\nFat people get worse healthcare, and the BMI matrix has a lot to do with that, and *that* is the issue. It's not that the BMI says you're overweight. It's that the BMI tells your doctor that you're overweight, and often, that means that your doctor isn't going to look as hard for issues as they would for someone who is thin.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96cj93",
                    "author": "TheMadManiac",
                    "body": "I think it's shit because you can be the right weight for your height but have no muscle on you. If you can't do even 1 pull-up then you are unhealthy",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96e25q",
                    "author": "Jackalope3434",
                    "body": "TLDR; A good metric would be one that is well understood and accepted as a functional truth, not so frequently misunderstood that it makes a good majority of healthy individuals feel \u201coverweight\u201d (as compared to the actual point for health indication which is NOT explicit in the way it\u2019s presented or qualifies people). \n\nBMI lends to eating disorders in youth due to schools/doctors being unable/unwilling to give the full educational insights. While the source I have is a blog, because I\u2019m not invested enough to search for extensive research docs, I am also speaking from experience. I\u2019ve never been even close to overweight, always a student athlete, full ride to college for track but not a crazy low body fat %, and that BMI chased me down in my nightmares. I ended up in the hospital trying to get my BMI down so I felt healthy. \n\n\n\nhttps://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/blog/changing-way-we-measure-health",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96gey4",
                    "author": "No-Calligrapher-3630",
                    "body": "Agree it's vilified for silly reasons. \n\n Don't agree it's a metric of health, it's an indicator of health. There are too many things BMI doesn't tell you about health. E.g., if you have cancer, of you have Parkinsons, if you are anemic, if you broke a bone, if you have an auto immune disease.\n\nBMI is associated with health. And is a decent predictor.... But I wouldn't agree it's any overall metric of health. \n\nAlso disagree with how people use the point of athletes have high BMI, so they are an exception to BMI being useful. Just because you're physically fit, doesn't mean you are healthy. Loads of body builders can have physical health complications.l because they are so big. Having incredibly low body fat can still be very unhealthy, even if you run miles.\n\n\nI agree with your overall point though.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96hp0p",
                    "author": "WildAsOrange",
                    "body": "My fiancee is a dietician in a hospital and one of her specialisations is treating body dismorphia and eating disorders:\n\nBMI is not a good factor of health because it doesn't take body composition into account. \n\nA heavyweight boxing champion can have a BMI of 30 while being 5'11\" and weight 220 which indicates obesity and still be healthy. \n\nA marathon runner can be healthy with a BMI that would indicate underweight. \n\n\nA normal dude can look healthy and still be overweight by the means of BMI",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96i10b",
                    "author": "icantbelieveatall",
                    "body": "Right so I guess I just have a complicated relationship with BMI\u2026\n\nA few years ago I was very aggressively told by my medical providers that I needed to increase my BMI (as in, you will get put on medical leave and forced to leave university unless you can rectify this situation immediately). J worked veryyyy hard to try and fix the issue, because I never got as underweight as I was because of body image, I had severe untreated depression causing a lack in appetite. I did everything my pcp and my nutritionist told me to do and it wasn\u2019t working. My psychiatrist ended up changing my antidepressant, and when they did they told me that one of the meds I could move to had the potential side affect of significant weight gain. Being concerned about my ability to stay at my educational institution (and my entire life at the time) I immediately chose that medication. Consequently, about a year and a half later my weight had very close to doubled.\n\nI am no longer taking that medicine, and about 2 years from the time that medical professionals being concerned about my weight. I am currently considered overweight, but am consistently losing weight (at about a rate of 7 pounds per month). This development is very concerning to me. This trend seems likely to continue, and I\u2019m trying very hard to maintain my weight at the (officially considered unhealthy) BMI level I am currently at. Because I do not want to go anywhere near the point I was at before. And getting even close to that point puts me far too close to the point where my life opportunities are limited because I am underweight. So for me, being considered \u201coverweight\u201d by BMI metrics (and I should clarify, by my medical professionals as well) is absolutely completely the most healthy place my weight could be right now. \n\nSo like, looking at just a metric of weight versus height cannot accurately predict what is most healthy for an individual in that moment. when I was severely underweight the associated health issues were evident in more than just the number, and while I am currently considered ovetweight the health benefits of this situation are evident in more than just the number. So I guess like the number isn\u2019t horrible, but I take issue with the notion that you can assign specific health characteristics on the basis of specific BMI cut offs. The number is just not as clear an important metric for overall health as many seem to believe. And soooo many seem to think it is.\n\nLike hey, my medical providers and I have decided that working to maintain my current \u201coverweight\u201d BMI status is vital.\n\nCan I also add, I was inaccurately diagnosed by one doctor as anorexic based purely on my BMI. and this incorrect diagnosis pushed me down a medical path which was distinctly harmful to my overall health because it assigned the \u201cblame\u201d of my issue to completely inaccurate places and encouraged me to do the same, without recognition that these assumptions were extremely oversimplified.\n\nSo I guess my point is that when we say \u201cthese are the numbers of this particular metric which mean this particular thing\u201d is, in this situation, harmful. Because the number can indicate any number of things, but medical professionals are only taught to see it as one particular thing. So every time I see a medical professional who would measure this value I have to spend far too long explaining the personal history behind this number to limit the immediate and inaccurate assumptions they will have. This is invasive and stupid. From my experience (and my understanding, speaking to others, is that this is true for most people with an unusual health history), the use of this metric has broadly served to oversimplify the medical treatment of the person, at the detriment of their actual potential for helpful treatment",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9709pz",
                    "author": "Finklesfudge",
                    "body": "Those are all examples of people misusing the tool. \n\nI think your point boils down to \"People who misuse tools can be harmful\".\n\nIt doesn't really make the tool harmful at all.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k96i10b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96ip6u",
                    "author": "veryreasonable",
                    "body": "So I'm one of those people for whom BMI happens to be a fairly a terrible metric of my relative health.  That is, I'm 6'4\" and vaguely athletic.  As you may already know, BMI does not take into account that volume (i.e. weight) grows non-linearly with surface area (i.e. height), and essentially, it's a metric designed to work well for people of average height, passably for people with off-average height, and not really at all for the people on the extremes of short or tall.  \n\nSo, like, I've got visible abs, but I'm borderline \"obese,\" according to my traditional BMI.  Or, more concretely, by any of the easy-to-calculate alternative metrics - waist-to-height ratio, simply tweaking the math of the BMI calculation, etc - I'm very healthy or even extremely healthy.  BMI is just too simple and produces rather innacurate results for a non-trivial minority segment of the population.   \n\nI don't necessarily believe it should be \"vilified\" for this, but I have seen it used before in situations where it was rather absurd - including for myself - and medical professionals just jot down my BMI as though it puts me in a category that it really really shouldn't.\n\nThus, I can challenge part of your view, I think very effectively: there are good reasons for BMI as it stands now to be at the very least called out as a metric, *and* we have demonstrably better alternative metrics, some of which are no more difficult to calculate (e.g. kg/m^2.5 instead of the usual kg/m^2).  If our present metric is flawed, *and* we have a better alternative metric available that eliminates those same flaws while being just as easy to calculate, there is every reason to call out the present metric and adopt the alternative metric.  \n\nReally, the only possible defence of traditional (kg/m^2) BMI I think you could make in this context is cultural inertia - and that's a pretty dodgy defence, to say the least.    \n\n-------------------------------\n\nInterestingly, because BMI is less useful specifically for edge-cases in height (and athleticism), it's probably still pretty defensible when used in statistics, for example to roughly evaluate obesity trends among national populations.  That is, the edge cases either cancel one another out, or else they simply don't contribute enough to the bell curve to throw off the results.  But, again, in the case of individuals, it remains a flawed metric, **and we have better ones.**",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96mj1x",
                    "author": "BoysenberryDry9196",
                    "body": "> But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric\n\nIt's a terrible metric for measuring anyone's individual health.\n\nIt's only even partially useful on a sociological level.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96mn1e",
                    "author": "Bi9D1ckR1ck",
                    "body": "You're fat, get over it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k99048y",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Bi9D1ckR1ck \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Bi9D1ckR1ck&message=Bi9D1ckR1ck%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/-/k96mn1e/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k96mn1e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96u0o3",
                    "author": "beatisagg",
                    "body": "I can, through only terribly unhealthy actions, raise or lower my BMI if given enough time and willpower.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96um0t",
                    "author": "StEvE19095",
                    "body": "If a waist measurement was added to the equation it would then be solid and much more reliable",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k96xno2",
                    "author": "VFequalsVeryFcked",
                    "body": "People use BMI incorrectly, that's why it's villified.\n\nIt's a perfectly good metric when used appropriately in the context of a thorough social history.\n\nIt's why it should only br used by appropriately trained health and social care professionals. GP Doctors and Nurses are notorious for getting it wrong, even though, on paper, they should be the best at applying it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97bz2a",
                    "author": "Specialist-Ad6309",
                    "body": "It's just a general guideline and most of the time it works. And I'm saying that being 193 cm, 110 kg, which means BMI would put me in the obesity range even though I'm not in a bad shape :D",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97dgr9",
                    "author": "Sarcastic_Wormhole",
                    "body": "Black people aren't monkeys, that's an insult to monkeys",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97kcf5",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Sarcastic_Wormhole \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \r\n\r\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \r\n\r\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20Sarcastic_Wormhole&message=Sarcastic_Wormhole%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/-/k97dgr9/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "k97dgr9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97ewgh",
                    "author": "CanyonCoyote",
                    "body": "This is the correct take and the fatphobia whiners are hurting way more people than they are helping. Every single doctor will tell you there is a healthy weight and being a healthy weight and in shape helps with overall health.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97glz1",
                    "author": "Precinct_Thirteen",
                    "body": "The problem with BMI is that an \"abnormal\" one can either indicate an unusually unhealthy individual, or an unusually healthy one. Basically, bmi doesn't correlate well with actual health considerations, which makes it a poor assessment of health, even as a public health metric. It would mark someone like [brian shaw](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Shaw_(strongman)) as being morbidly unhealthy, despite him being one of the greatest strong athletes of all time.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97kzsc",
                    "author": "entarian",
                    "body": "When I'm actually in shape, I'm one of the people that BMI doesn't work for and I realize that it's usually a pretty good tool. I'm 6 ft 2 and my legs are about as long as my wife's who's 5 ft 4.  BMI just doesn't work for me.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97lley",
                    "author": "Srapture",
                    "body": "The only people who try to discredit the BMI scale's usefulness are obese people in denial.\n\n\"ThE rOcK's BmI sAyS He'S oBeSe!11\"\n\nYeah, the Rock is totally a representative sample of the average person. I'm sure he's going to take that BMI completely to heart and starve himself. I'm sure dwarfs and that dude who is 2.5m tall have not particularly helpful BMI results as well. Completely inane point to make.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97m293",
                    "author": "hogliterature",
                    "body": "a large reason we still use BMI today is simply because we have been using it for a long time and we have the data to back up what we do know about it",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97mg3d",
                    "author": "thelightkeeper28",
                    "body": "There is no need to change your view because it is correct. BMI is useful as a screening metric, as a broad measure of population-level health and risk level for myriad diseases and conditions, correlates fairly well with health on an individual level, is easily calculable, and a readily standardizable/useable measure across a variety of specialties for study purposes.\n\nThe amount of people for whom BMI does not predict these things as accurately as it would for the people for whom it does fully apply is small enough to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things and for policy making.\n\nThe problem is that most people with a problem with BMI have deluded themselves into thinking they fall within these extremes. This applies as equally to the gym bros who think they are at athlete-level physical condition as it does to severely overweight women who have convinced themselves they have a thyroid problem or are big-boned. I say this not to shame or discriminate but to highlight that the backlash against BMI can have varied underlying beliefs as the cause. \n\nThe only kernel of truth the BMI naysayers hold is that you cannot really use a single metric to quantify the entirety of a persons health. But then truthfully, we don\u2019t do so when evaluating individuals and when you\u2019re talking at the population level, you actually do need one or few metrics that encapsulate the vast majority of the population so you can create policy. BMI does that.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97nox9",
                    "author": "Insight42",
                    "body": "It's a rule of thumb, and generally a solid one for that use.\n\nPeople (rightly) bring up the flaws because it's sometimes used as more than that, particularly in the last decade or so. Or used for kids, where it is often inaccurate.\n\nIt's not the fault of the metric itself when it's used for shit it wasn't intended for.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97pk9e",
                    "author": "ShamrockAPD",
                    "body": "BMI says I\u2019m obese. \n\nI can assure you, my six pack says otherwise.  Your first statement is the most important one- it works for MOST people. But those who are athletes their entire lives or live in the gym- it\u2019ll call all of us obese.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k98z3nu",
                    "author": "Old_Basket_868",
                    "body": "Yep, BMI says my skinny in-shape husband is overweight. \nBut it doesn\u2019t even necessarily work for most people. I mean, it works to measure weight/height ratio. That\u2019s it. \nIt doesn\u2019t work for athletes, it doesn\u2019t work for the black population, it doesn\u2019t work for skinny-fat people\n\nAnd furthermore, in\u2026I think it was 1998 they lowered the BMI number for what constitutes overweight and obese. There was a slew of people who were newly \u201cobese\u201d and there was a national wigging-out. \n\nHooray for the real winner, the diet industry!",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "k97pk9e"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k97runf",
                    "author": "CheshireKetKet",
                    "body": "#Ask Your Doctor\n\nThe professional with all your lab work? That's the person who has almost the info who can make an educated comment on your heath and weight. \n\nI've said this since day one. \n\nStrangers on reddit and in the internet like to think they have enough into to comment on people's weight. \n\nI used to take meds that made me gain 20 pounds in a month. I felt like shit. And everyone was just like \"eat less!\" \n\nI stopped the meds and lost 25 pounds. I eat the same. \n\nPeople need to understand that they don't know everything all of the time. Sometimes it's okay to scroll past or ask questions. You don't have to make shit up if you don't know what you're talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k982e5f",
                    "author": "Doomkauf",
                    "body": "I think a big part of the problem is that BMI works best as a population-level metric but tends to fall apart on an individual level, but we haven't developed a better individual-level metric so we keep using it in a way that highlights its weaknesses rather than its strengths.  It notoriously doesn't account for some pretty common variables that can skew someone's rating, fluid retention and musce mass being two of the more common ones, but it *does* give a pretty decent population-level overview of a location or particular demographic. \n\nThe BMI of a bodybuilder is likely to be quite simply inaccurate, as will the BMI of anyone taking medications that cause fluid retention (and that's quite a surprising number of people), but when applied to a large number of people, the majority of whom will not have those conditions, it becomes useful for assessing general weight trends and related health trends.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k986xro",
                    "author": "girhen",
                    "body": "Your caveats are exactly why BMI is fairly villified.  Nuances like race, age, athleticism, etc. lead to people who shouldn't be singled out getting singled out when doctors and health groups don't take any amount of nuance to their approach.\n\nIf you're going to say BMI is a useful tool, you have to advocate for it to be fairly used.  That isn't always the case.\n\nIt's like when an old person tries to overuse one piece of software for everything.  Picture slideshows in PowerPoint.  Flow charts in PowerPoint.  Free body diagrams for engineering in PowerPoint.\n\nWhen I criticize PowerPoint for being improperly used and overused, I'm not saying it's a bad tool.  I'm properly villifying its use outside its useful value.\n\nBMI is fairly villified as being overused out of context by tons of people who should know better.  If you can learn medicine, you can look at an athlete and put an asterisk in there.  Instead of 'obese', write 'athlete'.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k987es0",
                    "author": "SleepyBidenMan",
                    "body": "This is why I no longer consider what doctors have to say about general health. If I need a surgery I will go to a doctor. If I need health advice I will do my own research, just like you!",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k988eqg",
                    "author": "Dametequitos",
                    "body": "dang i read this as BLM at first and was expecting an unmitigated s-show xD",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k989m6l",
                    "author": "Educational_Quail_40",
                    "body": "Waist/hip ratio is a better indicator of WHERE fat is deposited rather than just overall fat on one's body. Apple-shaped people -- where more fat is deposited around the middle torso and closer to the heart -- are far more likely to die from heart disease than pear-shaped people, who have more fat in their hips and thighs. BMI doesn't tell you WHERE the fat is located, and that's a shortcoming of using BMI alone.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k98m10c",
                    "author": "candikanez",
                    "body": "You should probably research \"skinny fat\" and see just how ridiculous BMI really is.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k98y90c",
                    "author": "Old_Basket_868",
                    "body": "The person who came up with BMI literally said that is should not be used to measure health.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k99lxff",
                    "author": "shtreddt",
                    "body": "It isn't hard to develop a better metric, only it needs to rely on what people report, not objective measrements.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k99wv13",
                    "author": "awbradl9",
                    "body": "BMI is a statistical tool for looking at populations and can be useful for children. It was never intended to measure the health of adults, especially men. It\u2019s ridiculous that it\u2019s used this way so frequently. For example, My paperwork says I\u2019m overweight but my doc tells me it\u2019s the opposite and that I shouldn\u2019t try to lose weight.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9a3z1p",
                    "author": "Important-Nose3332",
                    "body": "I do always find it funny when regular people bring up how it doesn\u2019t account for lean muscle like the reason they\u2019re 300 pounds is their giant biceps and quads.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9amlq3",
                    "author": "iamerk24",
                    "body": "BMI is not designed for individual use, it was designed for use on large populations, and it is very good when used appropriately",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9aot9t",
                    "author": "insomniax20",
                    "body": "I worked out all of my adult life. Even at the height of my goals when I was at the gym 5 days a week, sometime twice a day, I was 6' tall,105kg and 5% body fat which made me technically obese.\n\n&#x200B;\n\n10 years later, I'm still being screen requests for diabetes because of the BMI my doctor recorded back then.",
                    "date": "2023-11-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9e21ke",
                    "author": "Queasy-Insurance3559",
                    "body": "There are LOTS of people that BMI misses or unreasonably categorizes.  \n\n\nI'm 5'7\", 215lbs, and female. According to BMI I am pretty firmly in the 'obese' category and your image of me will likely be of a severely heavy, fat woman. I am by no means slight or dainty but I am not huge. I'm definitely a bit chubby in the middle and have a long torso and short legs. I am not an athlete or a gymrat but I am very strong for my size.   \n\n\nThe lightest I've ever been as an adult was in the low 170's and I had my ribs and collarbone showing decently, my eyes were sunken. BMI still puts me in the 'Overweight' Category at that size",
                    "date": "2023-11-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9jbbon",
                    "author": "faithiestbrain",
                    "body": "The only way I'll ever have a BMI that doesnt classify me as overwight is through some extreme diet or lypo, two things I'd never consider. I'm 5'11\" with a 22\" waist, I'm basically a barbie, and decidedly not \"overwight\" to anyone who's ever seen me. \n\nIt's a good metric for people who fit a particular shape, but if you deviate from that shape much you're basically never going to have a BMI that accurately reflects your health. It might work if developed in and for a more homogenous population but in the US we're too different to try to have a catch-all like this.",
                    "date": "2023-11-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "k9m69m7",
                    "author": "Plenty-Bee-4353",
                    "body": "I am 31 years old and have never in my entire life heard anyone ever mention BMI in a social environment, let alone vilify it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "17ujao3",
                    "author": "feartrich",
                    "body": "Often, when you bring BMI up, people will find lots of good reasons to talk about how it's not a good metric. But the reality is that, for most people, BMI is actually not a bad way to measure their overall health, if they're going to just use one metric. Regardless of precise it is, BMI has been shown to generally correlate with specific health outcomes. It's pretty reasonable to say \"if you have X BMI, you're more likely to get Y disease\" if you can cite scientific consensus, and all you know about their health is their height and weight. You'd be backed by decades of scientific literature.\n\nFurthermore, for public health, there is no good alternative. We have tons of bulk data for height and weight. Widespread availability of data is the only way to have consistent and standardized comparisons across different populations. We don't have nearly as much body fat or A1C data etc. Furthermore, BMI is simple and almost completely standardized. A lot of other metrics are measured and reported in different ways; they're just not going to be as reliable as BMI for public health.\n\nOf course, an athlete with a high BMI should not necessarily be considered obese, and someone who has high BMI due to underlying health conditions should prioritize treating the underlying condition. There are people who are \"skinny fat\" and face all the same health risks that obese people have. But that doesn't mean BMI is a bad metric. It just means people have misunderstood and/or misused it. It's a perfectly good metric that needs to be taken in context like anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-11-13",
                    "score": 250,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: BMI is unfairly vilified",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/17ujao3/cmv_bmi_is_unfairly_vilified/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kct06yb",
                    "author": "Deltac1955",
                    "body": "Waist-to-height ratio may have more merit than either BMI or weight, regardless of body type.\n\n[https://youtu.be/MMNQTubs13o?si=-3\\_FunJqYL4pY-LQ](https://youtu.be/MMNQTubs13o?si=-3_FunJqYL4pY-LQ)\n\n[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20819243/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20819243/)\n\nHere's the Navy's implementation:\n\nhttps://www.bizcalcs.com/body-fat-navy/",
                    "date": "2023-12-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "17ujao3"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "183a31j",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                "date": "2023-11-24",
                "score": 292,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kanm6j7",
                "author": "TimelessJo",
                "body": "There are critiques of the concept, but you\u2019re fundamentally misunderstanding it. Fukuyama acknowledges the possibility of backsliding, just that a liberal democracy is the eventual endpoint with communism and fascism serving as modern modes of governance that go beyond the liberal democracy but ultimately fail to serve the needs of the people. When Fukuyama says history, he means history seen as a conflict over developing the best way for humans to live and he argues that we already found the endpoint of that conflict regardless if humans accept it or not.",
                "date": "2023-11-24",
                "score": 42,
                "parent_id": "183a31j"
            },
            {
                "id": "kanr6qr",
                "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                "body": "!delta\n\nFukuyama claims that capitalist liberal democracy is an ideal endpoint, not that we'll constantly make progress towards that goal.",
                "date": "2023-11-24",
                "score": 11,
                "parent_id": "kanm6j7"
            },
            {
                "id": "kanr9kq",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/TimelessJo ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/TimelessJo)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-24",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kanr6qr"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kanjc5b",
                    "author": "PorkfatWilly",
                    "body": "Problem was, the United states, after the fall of the Soviet Union, decided to continue on as if the Cold War never ended. They had pushed an agenda of world conquest ever since the end of the 2nd world war, because if the US didn\u2019t rule the world, the evil commies would, but when that fever dream ended, instead of shifting gears, decreasing defense spending, accepting the fact that there was no boogeyman to protect the homeland from, they just kept on with the game, meddling, overthrowing, invading, occupying, in their quest to become world sovereign, leading to an easily foreseeable response from every country willing and able to resist the international rules based order\u2019s demands",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kankhya",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, but how does this CMV? I don't see anything in your theory that shows how Fukuyama's theory is still right.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "kanjc5b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kankxri",
                    "author": "-Dendritic-",
                    "body": "I don't have time to fully address your CMV right now (I will later) but have you read any of Fukuyama's more recent books since he wrote the end of history? The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay are both great books imo, and a little more current",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kanm89i",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "I haven't read *Political Order and Political Decay* yet, but judging by the synopsis on Wikipedia, it appears to agree with the points I outlined, while also contradicting the End of History, as it shows that even strong democracies like the USA can decay, and that this decay can hit Europe too.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "kankxri"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kanwxf8",
                    "author": "TedTyro",
                    "body": "I remember him being solidly debunked inthe early 2000s.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaohmh3",
                    "author": "AbolishDisney",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kanwxf8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kao2gfr",
                    "author": "generic90sdude",
                    "body": "I thought  that was proven long ago...",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaoguww",
                    "author": "AbolishDisney",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kao2gfr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kao2h59",
                    "author": "Druid___",
                    "body": "No one can predict the future.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaodik5",
                    "author": "4thofeleven",
                    "body": "Even Fukuyama himself has stepped back from the stronger claims he made back in the 90s - I don't think anyone in political science really takes his thesis that seriously anymore. \n\nIn particular, China's pretty much demonstrated that economic liberalization doesn't neccisarily lead to political liberalization, their government has successfully opened up their markets to compete with the West without relinquishing any of their hold over power. It makes the whole inevitable rise of a liberal global order look a lot shakier.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kar8kxt",
                    "author": "Razmorg",
                    "body": "[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End\\_of\\_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history) \n\nIt's hard for me not to think he just saw an opening to repeat this tired meme which only gains credibility at certain peaks. Not hard to paint liberal democracy as a winner moments after their arch enemy just popped dead. Seems to have worked out good for him because from what I can see that statement seems to be what he's most famous for so he gobbled up that spot good.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kaodik5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaofmqo",
                    "author": "Born-Situation-9793",
                    "body": "Bin laden was a freedom fighter who did an act of decolonisation.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaogsu9",
                    "author": "AbolishDisney",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kaofmqo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kap4b2a",
                    "author": "Sufficient-Lemon-805",
                    "body": "There are criticisms of this concept, but you fundamentally misunderstand it. Mr. Fukuyama acknowledges the possibility of backsliding, but believes that  liberal democracy is the ultimate end point, and that while communism and fascism function as modern forms of government that go beyond  liberal democracy, they ultimately We only accept that we cannot meet the needs of  people. When Fukuyama talks about history, he means history  as a struggle over the development of the best way of life for people, and  that  the endpoint of this struggle has already been found, whether people accept it or not. he insists.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kap8rod",
                    "author": "Marmar79",
                    "body": "\u2018The Return of History\u2019 by Jennifer Welsh is a must read. She wrote it between 2013 and 2016 completely nails the world we are living in right now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kb5y0m1",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "OK, thanks, I will check out that book.",
                    "date": "2023-11-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kap8rod"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kap8v2b",
                    "author": "Effective_Opposite12",
                    "body": "In my personal opinion Fukuyama is a total hack so take this with a grain of salt. \n\n\nFirst of all, there is no wave of people suddenly liking Bin Laden, this is completely made up. You can check for yourself by searching for the alleged Bin Laden praising videos. \n\nSecondly I don\u2019t agree with the Premise of \u201eLiberal Capitalism is universal and dominating, so it must be a kind of natural convergence point\u201c. This ignores the decades of Propaganda and Suppression many governments and powerful people employed to make it so because it directly benefits them and also ignores so many countries where this was far from the norm until colonialism happened to them. Many countries experienced significant regression in social norms after they adopted the neoliberal MO, for example many countries in Africa, where progressive social norms like the acceptance of LGBTQ people was already normalized (something we struggle with hard today) and only ceased to exist after meddling by the Catholic Church. Most of the historical writings by European settlers concerning this takeover are deliberately written to make it seem the African people were already like this \u201enaturally\u201c when in reality it was brutally enforced. \n\nFukuyama makes the same mistake many \u201epop historians\u201c with controversial takes make: assuming most of these developments aren\u2019t in some way directed and controlled but naturally emerging. In a time where we already know about stuff like Cointelpro this argument simply falls flat for me.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaqvsf2",
                    "author": "daddicus_thiccman",
                    "body": "Fukuyama wasn\u2019t a \u201cpop historian\u201d, you have the same critiques of those who literally judged a book by its cover and did not read it. \n\nFascism and communism didn\u2019t fail because capitalism \u201cundermined them\u201d (which would also prove Fukuyama\u2019s point) but rather because they did not provide for the needs or desires of their populations.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kap8v2b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kap9s1t",
                    "author": "Uncle_Touchy1987",
                    "body": "Despite some bumps in the road, I think Steven Pinker\u2019s work would shed some light on the core idea and may change your view.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kapb2yq",
                    "author": "Yogghee",
                    "body": "Not \"proven\" wrong. Regardless of your political or ideological affiliation the MASSIVE apparatus of progressive recidivism and social manipulation in *universally* recognized and it's entrenchment and reach cannot be overstated. If somehow humanity could harness the new tools of communication and use them for things like communication and democracy What would \"come to be\" and what is actually allowed to manifest by the powers that be would be dramatic.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaphqli",
                    "author": "arjensmit",
                    "body": "\"The end of history\". This titel and the thoughts behind it are so cringeworthy. \n\nIt shows of an extremely biased and narrow world view. All inspired on the capitalism vs communism tunnel vission. He basically states \"we won, this is it, this is perfection\". \n\nOf course humanity and our social systems keep evolving. There is no end of history. There is no ultimate winner, there is no perfect system. There is just a winner in this moment in time, until we evolve to something new and better. \n\nBetter than the liberal democracy we have now. What will that be ? Who knows, maybe something with AI, maybe something with all humans having their brain plugged in to the matrix and all of us being a part of a much bigger neural netwerk. Future will tell.   \n\n\nIt surprises me this guy can be taken so seriously.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaqwdpp",
                    "author": "daddicus_thiccman",
                    "body": "He is taken seriously by people that actually read the book and did not literally judge it by its cover. It does not say what you think it says.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kaphqli"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kapht4v",
                    "author": "EmptyChocolate4545",
                    "body": "End of history ended a long time ago. This is a well-written about topic and anyone would be hard-pressed to change your view that a naive view of the end of tons of this stuff from the 90s is still valid considering what is happening in the world right now that directly contradicts it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kapkd44",
                    "author": "DankMemesNQuickNuts",
                    "body": "I thought this was a subreddit about changing people's mind about an opinion this is just an objective fact. The author has even said it himself",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kapqiab",
                    "author": "Da_Sigismund",
                    "body": "Yes. Fukuyama is wrong. Democracy is not an automatic thing. It's a fragile system that can be subserved. And capitalism can be perverted with monopolies. \n\nIf you look at the state of things, several places are at risk of becoming a neofeudalistic society at some point in the future. \n\nThe rich are becoming so rich that risks are diminishing and generational wealth is ramping up. They are controlling more and more and automation will probably help them ditch a lot of the work force in the future.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kaqta2a",
                    "author": "KilgoreTroutPfc",
                    "body": "The End of History only held up until the Balkan Wars. By the time I was in college it was already being taught as a debunked theory.",
                    "date": "2023-11-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "183a31j",
                    "author": "Real_Carl_Ramirez",
                    "body": "This post is partially inspired by this news story: [Bin Laden's Letter to US Stuns Young Americans: 'He Was Right'](https://www.newsweek.com/bin-laden-letter-us-stuns-young-americans-he-was-right-1844234)\n\nFrancis Fukuyama is an American political scientist who wrote of the \"End of History\". This concept posits that with fascism and communism defeated, humanity will now gravitate towards a gradual universal adoption of capitalist liberal democracy. Fukuyama also claimed that the \"End of History\" will reduce conflicts between nations as the people concern themselves less with ideology and national identity, as increasing economic prosperity becomes the main concern and smooths over other concerns. Thanks to recent history, I think that such a concept is now laughable:\n\n* Regarding the news story about young Americans agreeing with Bin Laden, this goes to show that even within capitalist liberal democracies, this model is being undermined inconvenient truths, which are further spread by social media and influencers.\n   * There is a lot of dirt to be dug up about capitalist liberal democracies (e.g. regime change operations, war crimes, atrocities against indigenous peoples). With the advent of the internet, these inconvenient truths are easier to find and therefore further weaken our nations through distrust, while more authoritarian countries can keep their dirt under wraps.\n   * I'm not against truth and freedom of information, I'm just pointing out that the model that Fukuyama believed would triumph is actually quite fragile and easy to undermine.\n* [Democratic backsliding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_backsliding) is occurring in many countries across the world, vastly overshadowing any progress in democratisation:\n   * See [this report from 2020](https://web.archive.org/web/20210914030243/https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/74/8c/748c68ad-f224-4cd7-87f9-8794add5c60f/dr_2021_updated.pdf) or [this report from 2022](https://web.archive.org/web/20230314164628/https://bti-project.org/en/reports/global-dashboard?&cb=00000).\n   * There seems to be a perverse incentive to democratic backsliding, as increasing autocracy appears to be advantageous to leaders who intend to govern like a Paradox Interactive grand strategy game (i.e. to make their country even more powerful on the world stage).\n   * Additionally, [multiple countries are experiencing a double whammy of democratic backsliding and political polarisation](https://carnegieendowment.org/2022/01/18/what-happens-when-democracies-become-perniciously-polarized-pub-86190), [which is also growing around the world](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/16/most-across-19-countries-see-strong-partisan-conflicts-in-their-society-especially-in-south-korea-and-the-u-s/).\n* Living standards in capitalist liberal democracies are decreasing, which sows doubt on the promises of capitalism and liberal democracy:\n   * See \"[Living standards tumbling in Australia despite booming national wealth](https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/living-standards-tumbling-in-australia-despite-booming-national-wealth,15747)\" and \"[Britons \u2018need to accept\u2019 they\u2019re poorer, says Bank of England economist](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/apr/25/britons-need-to-accept-theyre-poorer-says-bank-of-england-economist)\".\n   * Even if you blame external factors for these problems, such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Russian invasion of Ukraine, these events prove to us the resilience of authoritarian systems in the PRC and Russia in contrast to liberal democracies, as declining living standards don't destabilise them as much.\n   * The large-scale international resurgence of the far-right is [partially fed by legitimate concerns of economic insecurity](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/31/across-europe-the-far-right-is-rising-that-it-seems-normal-is-all-the-more-terrifying).\n\nTo conclude, while I believe that Fukuyama's concepts have been debunked by recent history, I can also understand why Fukuyama made such claims in the 1990s. Back then, he wouldn't have been able to foresee the problems that we're facing now.",
                    "date": "2023-11-24",
                    "score": 292,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Francis Fukuyama's \"End of History\" has been proven wrong",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/183a31j/cmv_francis_fukuyamas_end_of_history_has_been/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kasz291",
                    "author": "yelkca",
                    "body": "These days, he would agree with you.",
                    "date": "2023-11-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "183a31j"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "186y802",
                "author": "Sleepycoon",
                "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 286,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbb5jn5",
                "author": "Lazy_Trash_6297",
                "body": "Cookies have so few ingredients that every ingredient makes a huge difference. \n\nI\u2019d argue that the texture isn\u2019t one of the main feature of a chocolate chip cookie. \n\nChocolate chip cookies can have a range of textures from crispy to cakey. Martha Stewart\u2019s basic chocolate chip cookie is really cakey. But if you bought a Tate\u2019s chocolate chip it\u2019s more on the crispy side and not cakey at all. \n\nI do think that some chewy ness is essential to a good chocolate chip. But they can be recognizably a good chocolate chip cookie without being chewy. \n\nBrown sugar is basically just white sugar with molasses, so you can imitate that in other ways. You can make chocolate chip cookies with honey, for instance. You can make them with white sugar they just won\u2019t be as chewy- these recipes exist. \n\nThere are also a lot of variations of chocolate chip cookies that we will still recognize as a chocolate chip cookie even if they\u2019re really different . Dorie Greenspan\u2019s chocolate chunker cookie is one- it tastes like a richer more decadent chocolate chip, it\u2019s chewy, but it doesn\u2019t have brown sugar. By volume it\u2019s more mix-ins than dough. \nhttps://www.saveur.com/chocolate-chunker-cookie-recipe/",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "186y802"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbb7hic",
                "author": "Sleepycoon",
                "body": "Yeah I think this is a !delta because while I was thinking only in terms of the classic or basic chocolate chip cookie, I didn't specify that and wasn't really thinking about the number of variant chocolate chip cookies like the one you linked, white chocolate chip macadamia nut, etc. Furthermore, specifying the inclusion of molasses over brown sugar would have been more accurate.\n\nI think my point still stands that for a traditional plain chocolate chip cookie the importance of the molasses is equal to, if not greater than, the chocolate chips and a random person would likely immediately identify a brown sugar cookie as a chocolate chip cookie that someone forgot to put chocolate chips in before they ever called it a sugar cookie with molasses.",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "kbb5jn5"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbb7kfp",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Lazy_Trash_6297 ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Lazy_Trash_6297)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbb7hic"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbazz9v",
                    "author": "Lylieth",
                    "body": "What is a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips?\n\nI argue they're just \"[brown surgar cookies](https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/chewy-brown-sugar-cookies/)\".",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 24,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb7w9x",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "And I'd argue that if you made brown sugar cookies and handed them out most people would think, \"This idiot forgot to put chocolate chips in this chocolate chip cookie!\" before they think, \"Oh boy a brown sugar cookie!\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "kbazz9v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb2hm8",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "If you ask someone if they want a chocolate chip cookie and they say yes, and you give them a brown sugar cookie without chocolate chips, they're going to be confused because you didn't give them a chocolate chip cookie. \n\nIf you give them a regular sugar cookie with chocolate chips, they might be surprised because it's a non-traditional kind of chocolate chip cookie, but they won't be confused as to why you called it a chocolate chip cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 120,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb3gta",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "Would they be confused about what I handed them or ask why I made a sugar cookie with brown sugar, or would they say something more like, \"you forgot to add the chocolate chips.\"?",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "kbb2hm8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb2oc4",
                    "author": "blastzone24",
                    "body": "If you made two batches of cookies, one a sugar cookie recipe and added chocolate chips, people would say, \"what a weird chocolate chip cookie\"\n\nand then you made a chocolate chip cookie but left out the chocolate  chips, people would say \"what a weird sugar cookie\" \n\nArguing that the second is closer to a true chocolate chip recipe than the fist will get you a blank stare from most people and a \"but it didn't have chocolate chips\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbb975",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "If I offer someone a chocolate chip cookie and they're anticipating a chocolate chip cookie then I hand them a white sugar chocolate chip cookie it won't be what they had anticipated. If I handed them a brown sugar cookie, it won't be what they anticipated. The first is definitionally a chocolate chip cookie, so they'd accept it as such, but it won't be what they wanted.\n\nIf I had handed them a brown sugar cookie after offering a chocolate chip cookie I don't think most people would identify it as a brown sugar cookie before simply thinking, \"this one didn't get any chips in it.\"\n\nI think both are equally distant from the general expectation of a chocolate chip cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbb2oc4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb33pg",
                    "author": "sawdeanz",
                    "body": "Uh, no. If you put chocolate chips in a sugar cookie recipe 95% of people will call it a chocolate chip cookie. Hands down. It\u2019s not even close. I doubt the average person would even know that they are normally made with brown sugar. Go on. Try it. Ask people on the grocery store to name the ingredients in a chocolate chip cookie. I bet less than half would specifically call out brown sugar. They would think and say \u201cidk, flour, eggs, sugar, chocolate chips, probably baking soda, etc\u201d\n\nIt\u2019s possible you are factually right if you were to ask a panel of bakers, but that\u2019s not the view you presented. You stated that intuitive and popular view is that brown sugar is the defining ingredient and that is wrong simply because most people are not familiar enough with baking to even know the difference. \n\nBut there are reasons to question your statement on a factual basis too. There are dozens if not hundreds of variations of chocolate chip cookies. Vegan ones, oatmeal ones, flourless ones, chocolate ones. They may or may not have brown sugar. But what they do all share the same name\u2026. \u201cSomething something chocolate chip cookie.\u201d What is your source that a chocolate chip cookie has to have brown sugar?",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 20,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb6j85",
                    "author": "hikerchick29",
                    "body": "The point OP is making isn\u2019t that the chips aren\u2019t necessary.  I think they\u2019re trying to say they aren\u2019t the secret to good cookies.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbb33pg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb7aqw",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "I think to be absolutely sure you need to send everyone on reddit cookies.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbbmi2",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "This is the best argument so far. Maybe do a control with some chipless brown sugar cookies, some chocolate chip cookies with a single chip, all the way up to just a solid puck of chocolate. Do a survey, find the upper and lower bounds of what people will identify as a chocolate chip cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbb7aqw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb8fsx",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": ">I posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but without the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but with chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nI'll dm you my address, you can mail me some cookies and I will give them to my wife and kids who have not read your post.\n\nfor the sugar cookie with chocolate chips added\n\n* I'm sure my kids will say that they are the chocolate chip cookies.  they are 4 and 6.  They know what chocolate ships are.  These cookies have chocolate chips in them.\n* My wife, I'm fairly sure would say, \"this is an unusual chocolate chip cookie\" or she might say \"what is wrong with this chocolate chip cookie\".  These cookies have chocolate chips in them.  \n* my mother in law, who is a good cook and very familiarly with many differences recipes might say, \"whoever made this chocolate chip cookies must have run out of brown sugar\"\n\nfor the chocolate chip cookies without chocolates chips.\n\n* I'm sure that nobody in my family would be able to identity these as a common type of cookie.  They would say things like, \"what kind of cookie is this\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbba58j",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">The basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\r\n\nYou're confusing a drop cookie and a rolled cookie which are very different. It's not just brown sugar. I rarely use brown sugar and I make great choc chip cookies. Sugar cookies are a different animal.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbhsc7",
                    "author": "Adequate_Images",
                    "body": "\u201cThe integral ingredient to pepperoni pizza is the cheese, not the pepperoni\u201d\n\nThis makes as much sense as your statement. \n\nWe have different names for things for a reason.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbkskg",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "While this is hilarious I think it kind of supports the point I was trying to make.\n\nIf anything cheese is more integral to what people expect from a pepperoni pizza than molasses is to a chocolate chip cookie.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza the cheese is assumed. No one orders a \"pepperoni and cheese pizza\" and if someone wants a pizza with just pepperoni they're going to specify no cheese.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza and they set a pizza with pepperonis but no cheese on your table you're probably going to send it back to be remade and not accept, \"But you wanted pepperoni pizza and this meets the definition.\" as a reasonable explanation.\n\nIf I buy a chocolate chip cookie and I'm given a chocolate chip cookie made with white sugar and no molasses I'm going to be disappointed and a little confused as to why they'd make it like that. It's not going to taste or feel like the cookie I wanted.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "kbbhsc7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbc0w2f",
                    "author": "Haunting_Rain_3951",
                    "body": "You just don\u2019t know what a chocolate chip cookie is. Adding cinnamon makes it a different cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbcmawt",
                    "author": "Bubblegum-N-Orgasms",
                    "body": "The vanilla flavoring is my favorite part!",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbcmxlm",
                    "author": "LowerAnt7017",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve subbed honey for brown sugar and nobody noticed a lack of brown sugar or thought they were anything different than a really good choc chip cookie. They actually turned out a little more chewy which I prefer.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbcve5m",
                    "author": "StarChild413",
                    "body": "They both could be integral in different ways, chocolate chips make a chocolate chip cookie a chocolate chip cookie, brown sugar makes a good chocolate chip cookie a good chocolate chip cookie",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbdkkhq",
                    "author": "AUniquePerspective",
                    "body": "I'm going to have to disagree. The integral difference between the sugar cookie and the chocolate chip cookie is the flour to fat ratio. Sugar cookies are rolled or pressed because they're made from firm enough dough. Chocolate chip cookies are drop cookies and whatever way you drop their very sticky dough that's almost a borderline batter doesn't really matter because they have insufficient structural integrity to hold their shape in cooking: they're turning out roundish no matter what.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbe1txz",
                    "author": "Nivek8789",
                    "body": "Well you still need chips or chunks",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbejepc",
                    "author": "GThane",
                    "body": "So my family makes a molasses cookie that is more brown sugar that molasses. You would not call it a chocolate chip cookie because of its brown sugar content. You can also make a cookie with out brown sugar and people would still consider it a cookie, regardless of if it tastes worse or different.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbgfixx",
                    "author": "chollida1",
                    "body": "Given that alot of chocolate chip cookie recipes don't have brown sugar this seems like it should be a trivialby provable cmv, no?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbmpkku",
                    "author": "Elder_Millennial108",
                    "body": "Arguing here on behalf of my mom. She will take a perfectly good batch of chocolate chip cookies and pick out ONLY the chocolate chips to eat. Then, like a true monster, she will put the tupperware lid back so the next person is faced with swiss cheese cookies.  I think she would say the chips are the integral ingredient.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbp2qvu",
                    "author": "MobiusCowbell",
                    "body": "Browned butter \ud83e\udd1d brown sugar",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwt49f",
                    "author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
                    "body": "No. The integral ingredient in a chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip. If you put chocolate chips in any cookie, it is a chocolate chip cookie. It might not be what you first imagine when somebody says chocolate chip cookie, but it will technically be a chocolate chip cookie. If you made sugar cookies and put chocolate chips in them, they would be weird tasting chocolate chip cookies. You are correct that brown sugar gives the flavor that most people think about when they think about chocolate chip cookies, but it is not mandatory to fall in that category.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "186y802",
                "author": "Sleepycoon",
                "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 286,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbb85gj",
                "author": "LentilDrink",
                "body": "Chips Ahoy is a super classic chocolate chip cookie.\n\nThe ingredients do not contain any brown sugar ahttps://www.mondelezinternationalfoodservice.com/Product/ProductDetails/ProductId=10044000052222 and it's a very standard prepackaged chocolate chip cookie.",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 83,
                "parent_id": "186y802"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbbgnc0",
                "author": "Sleepycoon",
                "body": "!delta\n\nHard to argue with probably the most widely known prepackaged chocolate chip cookie, although I do have caveats.\n\nFirst, cheapest available ingredients, most allowable shortcuts, cut quality to serve the bottom line, screw freshness these things need to stay edible forever, prepackaged, mass produced food isn't what I'd call the best example of the ideal form of a food.\n\nSecond, the chewy chips ahoy which I would argue are closer to home baked chocolate chip cookies and which is, at least in my experience, generally greatly preferred over the original [does contain molasses](https://www.mondelezinternationalfoodservice.com/Product/ProductDetails/ProductId=10044000047365).",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 55,
                "parent_id": "kbb85gj"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbbgt7a",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LentilDrink ([52\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LentilDrink)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-29",
                "score": 6,
                "parent_id": "kbbgnc0"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbazz9v",
                    "author": "Lylieth",
                    "body": "What is a chocolate chip cookie without chocolate chips?\n\nI argue they're just \"[brown surgar cookies](https://sallysbakingaddiction.com/chewy-brown-sugar-cookies/)\".",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 24,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb7w9x",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "And I'd argue that if you made brown sugar cookies and handed them out most people would think, \"This idiot forgot to put chocolate chips in this chocolate chip cookie!\" before they think, \"Oh boy a brown sugar cookie!\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "kbazz9v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb2hm8",
                    "author": "muyamable",
                    "body": "If you ask someone if they want a chocolate chip cookie and they say yes, and you give them a brown sugar cookie without chocolate chips, they're going to be confused because you didn't give them a chocolate chip cookie. \n\nIf you give them a regular sugar cookie with chocolate chips, they might be surprised because it's a non-traditional kind of chocolate chip cookie, but they won't be confused as to why you called it a chocolate chip cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 120,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb3gta",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "Would they be confused about what I handed them or ask why I made a sugar cookie with brown sugar, or would they say something more like, \"you forgot to add the chocolate chips.\"?",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "kbb2hm8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb2oc4",
                    "author": "blastzone24",
                    "body": "If you made two batches of cookies, one a sugar cookie recipe and added chocolate chips, people would say, \"what a weird chocolate chip cookie\"\n\nand then you made a chocolate chip cookie but left out the chocolate  chips, people would say \"what a weird sugar cookie\" \n\nArguing that the second is closer to a true chocolate chip recipe than the fist will get you a blank stare from most people and a \"but it didn't have chocolate chips\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbb975",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "If I offer someone a chocolate chip cookie and they're anticipating a chocolate chip cookie then I hand them a white sugar chocolate chip cookie it won't be what they had anticipated. If I handed them a brown sugar cookie, it won't be what they anticipated. The first is definitionally a chocolate chip cookie, so they'd accept it as such, but it won't be what they wanted.\n\nIf I had handed them a brown sugar cookie after offering a chocolate chip cookie I don't think most people would identify it as a brown sugar cookie before simply thinking, \"this one didn't get any chips in it.\"\n\nI think both are equally distant from the general expectation of a chocolate chip cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbb2oc4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb33pg",
                    "author": "sawdeanz",
                    "body": "Uh, no. If you put chocolate chips in a sugar cookie recipe 95% of people will call it a chocolate chip cookie. Hands down. It\u2019s not even close. I doubt the average person would even know that they are normally made with brown sugar. Go on. Try it. Ask people on the grocery store to name the ingredients in a chocolate chip cookie. I bet less than half would specifically call out brown sugar. They would think and say \u201cidk, flour, eggs, sugar, chocolate chips, probably baking soda, etc\u201d\n\nIt\u2019s possible you are factually right if you were to ask a panel of bakers, but that\u2019s not the view you presented. You stated that intuitive and popular view is that brown sugar is the defining ingredient and that is wrong simply because most people are not familiar enough with baking to even know the difference. \n\nBut there are reasons to question your statement on a factual basis too. There are dozens if not hundreds of variations of chocolate chip cookies. Vegan ones, oatmeal ones, flourless ones, chocolate ones. They may or may not have brown sugar. But what they do all share the same name\u2026. \u201cSomething something chocolate chip cookie.\u201d What is your source that a chocolate chip cookie has to have brown sugar?",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 20,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb6j85",
                    "author": "hikerchick29",
                    "body": "The point OP is making isn\u2019t that the chips aren\u2019t necessary.  I think they\u2019re trying to say they aren\u2019t the secret to good cookies.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbb33pg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb7aqw",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "I think to be absolutely sure you need to send everyone on reddit cookies.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbbmi2",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "This is the best argument so far. Maybe do a control with some chipless brown sugar cookies, some chocolate chip cookies with a single chip, all the way up to just a solid puck of chocolate. Do a survey, find the upper and lower bounds of what people will identify as a chocolate chip cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbb7aqw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbb8fsx",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": ">I posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but without the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but with chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nI'll dm you my address, you can mail me some cookies and I will give them to my wife and kids who have not read your post.\n\nfor the sugar cookie with chocolate chips added\n\n* I'm sure my kids will say that they are the chocolate chip cookies.  they are 4 and 6.  They know what chocolate ships are.  These cookies have chocolate chips in them.\n* My wife, I'm fairly sure would say, \"this is an unusual chocolate chip cookie\" or she might say \"what is wrong with this chocolate chip cookie\".  These cookies have chocolate chips in them.  \n* my mother in law, who is a good cook and very familiarly with many differences recipes might say, \"whoever made this chocolate chip cookies must have run out of brown sugar\"\n\nfor the chocolate chip cookies without chocolates chips.\n\n* I'm sure that nobody in my family would be able to identity these as a common type of cookie.  They would say things like, \"what kind of cookie is this\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbba58j",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": ">The basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\r\n\nYou're confusing a drop cookie and a rolled cookie which are very different. It's not just brown sugar. I rarely use brown sugar and I make great choc chip cookies. Sugar cookies are a different animal.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbhsc7",
                    "author": "Adequate_Images",
                    "body": "\u201cThe integral ingredient to pepperoni pizza is the cheese, not the pepperoni\u201d\n\nThis makes as much sense as your statement. \n\nWe have different names for things for a reason.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbbkskg",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "While this is hilarious I think it kind of supports the point I was trying to make.\n\nIf anything cheese is more integral to what people expect from a pepperoni pizza than molasses is to a chocolate chip cookie.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza the cheese is assumed. No one orders a \"pepperoni and cheese pizza\" and if someone wants a pizza with just pepperoni they're going to specify no cheese.\n\nIf you order a pepperoni pizza and they set a pizza with pepperonis but no cheese on your table you're probably going to send it back to be remade and not accept, \"But you wanted pepperoni pizza and this meets the definition.\" as a reasonable explanation.\n\nIf I buy a chocolate chip cookie and I'm given a chocolate chip cookie made with white sugar and no molasses I'm going to be disappointed and a little confused as to why they'd make it like that. It's not going to taste or feel like the cookie I wanted.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "kbbhsc7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbc0w2f",
                    "author": "Haunting_Rain_3951",
                    "body": "You just don\u2019t know what a chocolate chip cookie is. Adding cinnamon makes it a different cookie.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbcmawt",
                    "author": "Bubblegum-N-Orgasms",
                    "body": "The vanilla flavoring is my favorite part!",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbcmxlm",
                    "author": "LowerAnt7017",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve subbed honey for brown sugar and nobody noticed a lack of brown sugar or thought they were anything different than a really good choc chip cookie. They actually turned out a little more chewy which I prefer.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbcve5m",
                    "author": "StarChild413",
                    "body": "They both could be integral in different ways, chocolate chips make a chocolate chip cookie a chocolate chip cookie, brown sugar makes a good chocolate chip cookie a good chocolate chip cookie",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbdkkhq",
                    "author": "AUniquePerspective",
                    "body": "I'm going to have to disagree. The integral difference between the sugar cookie and the chocolate chip cookie is the flour to fat ratio. Sugar cookies are rolled or pressed because they're made from firm enough dough. Chocolate chip cookies are drop cookies and whatever way you drop their very sticky dough that's almost a borderline batter doesn't really matter because they have insufficient structural integrity to hold their shape in cooking: they're turning out roundish no matter what.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbe1txz",
                    "author": "Nivek8789",
                    "body": "Well you still need chips or chunks",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbejepc",
                    "author": "GThane",
                    "body": "So my family makes a molasses cookie that is more brown sugar that molasses. You would not call it a chocolate chip cookie because of its brown sugar content. You can also make a cookie with out brown sugar and people would still consider it a cookie, regardless of if it tastes worse or different.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbgfixx",
                    "author": "chollida1",
                    "body": "Given that alot of chocolate chip cookie recipes don't have brown sugar this seems like it should be a trivialby provable cmv, no?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbmpkku",
                    "author": "Elder_Millennial108",
                    "body": "Arguing here on behalf of my mom. She will take a perfectly good batch of chocolate chip cookies and pick out ONLY the chocolate chips to eat. Then, like a true monster, she will put the tupperware lid back so the next person is faced with swiss cheese cookies.  I think she would say the chips are the integral ingredient.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbp2qvu",
                    "author": "MobiusCowbell",
                    "body": "Browned butter \ud83e\udd1d brown sugar",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "186y802",
                    "author": "Sleepycoon",
                    "body": "I think it's safe to say that in the US at least the chocolate chip cookie is the de facto cookie. It's the one that most people immediately think of when hearing \"cookie,\" it's the one that 95% of the results are if you Google image search \"cookie,\" it's *the* cookie.\n\nThe other contender, or more accurately, the runner up, is the sugar cookie. It's the default cookie. The most basic, nondescript, blank canvas of a cookie out there. It's a classic for holidays, decorating, and the cookie that most cookie flavored things are based on.\n\nThe basic version of these two cookies are very similar. They're both flour, baking soda, salt, softened butter, egg, vanilla, and sugar in similar quantities. The only two notable differences are the chocolate chips and that sugar cookies are made with white sugar and chocolate chip cookies are made with brown sugar.\n\nIntuition would say that the integral difference in basic sugar cookies and *chocolate chip* cookies is *chocolate chips*. It's in the name, it's the iconic chip-in-cookie look, it's the textural variety of crunchy-on-the-outside melty-on-the-inside chunks in your cookie, it's the difference in vanilla and sugar flavored vs vanilla, sugar, and chocolate flavored. Obviously the chocolate chips are what make the chocolate chip cookie!\n\nI posit, though, that if I were to ask someone to describe two cookies, one a classic chocolate chip cookie recipe but *without* the chips and one a classic sugar cookie recipe but *with* chocolate chips added, most people would say something along the lines of, \"This is a sugar cookie with chocolate chips, and this chocolate chip cookie has no chocolate chips in it.\"\n\nThe look, feel, texture, and taste of the brown sugar cookie base is iconic and recognizable enough that a brown sugar cookie will generally be identified as a chocolate chip cookie even without the chocolate chips because it's the brown sugar, not the chocolate chips, that give it most of its defining traits. In the same way, the dough base is so integral that even though \"chocolate chip cookie\" simply implies a cookie with chocolate chips most people would not call a cookie with chocolate chips a chocolate chip cookie if it wasn't a brown sugar cookie with chocolate chips.\n\nI haven't had the opportunity to blind test my hypothesis, so I thought I'd lay my chips on the table and see if anyone on here can give me a compelling reason as to why I'm incorrect.",
                    "date": "2023-11-29",
                    "score": 286,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The integral ingredient to chocolate chip cookies is brown sugar, not chocolate chips.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/186y802/cmv_the_integral_ingredient_to_chocolate_chip/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwt49f",
                    "author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
                    "body": "No. The integral ingredient in a chocolate chip cookie is a chocolate chip. If you put chocolate chips in any cookie, it is a chocolate chip cookie. It might not be what you first imagine when somebody says chocolate chip cookie, but it will technically be a chocolate chip cookie. If you made sugar cookies and put chocolate chips in them, they would be weird tasting chocolate chip cookies. You are correct that brown sugar gives the flavor that most people think about when they think about chocolate chip cookies, but it is not mandatory to fall in that category.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "186y802"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "187kbxo",
                "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                "date": "2023-11-30",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbf6whf",
                "author": "iamintheforest",
                "body": "Is there a distinction between \"everything people do is ultimately selfish\" and your view?  I don't think so.\n\nThe context of people saying that it's selfish to not have kids is to say that you're sustaining and interest in doing things for self whereas the person who has kids wants to spend their time on others.  We might say that this is _ultimately_ a self-want and therefore selfish, but to take that stance is to be having a pretty different conversation than the (typical) person who says it.",
                "date": "2023-11-30",
                "score": 18,
                "parent_id": "187kbxo"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbf75pz",
                "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                "body": "!delta. \n\nI can finally see the difference. Ultimately i find these people whom call me selfish rude as hell though. I might be cynical but i still think most parents have a terrible me first attitude when they have kids. They had kids because me first. I want someone to love me mentality",
                "date": "2023-11-30",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "kbf6whf"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbf7879",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iamintheforest ([262\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/iamintheforest)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-11-30",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbf75pz"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kberlfa",
                    "author": "Rainbwned",
                    "body": "What is your definition of selfish?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kberrbf",
                    "author": "Imadevilsadvocater",
                    "body": "do you want to eat?\n\nwant to have friends? \n\nwant to feel love? \n\nwant to sleep?\n\nwant to live?\n\nif any of those seem like needs not wants congrats youve learned why people want kids. its in our dna to want them (which makes them a psuedo need at the least) the same way we need all the other things above. most people will have negative emotions if they dont have kids (see stillborns/women who steal babies/women who are jealous of other family members having kids) its a need for most people and there is no argument for that other than i was born to want it and only undiscovered or immoral medical intervention can change that about me",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbew0oc",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "I don't make my friends dependent on me. I don't force my friends to sleep with me even if I want to.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kberrbf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kberud0",
                    "author": "kevinwestern777",
                    "body": "This is an opinion of an child free person (if I had to guess?), because once you have children your life becomes a whole lot less about \u201cyou\u201d. Not sure where \u201cselfish\u201d comes into okay. My ideal weekend would be to wake up at 9am, go play golf with my wife and friends, hang out and get drinks after, and maybe play and record music at night. \n\nBut with a kid? I wake up at 6am. I have to change diapers, clothe him, feed him, watch him till nap time, pickup again in a few hours, eventually bathe him, get ready for bed, and about 8pm-9pm I\u2019ve got like an hour to do things I want to do. \n\nNow, I love my guy and every second I get to hang out with him, but I wouldn\u2019t call this \u201cselfish\u201d. I mean, devoting 20 years to raising and helping someone else seems like the opposite of selfish to be honest.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 46,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeufs9",
                    "author": "Severe-Bicycle-9469",
                    "body": "I guess for the sake of argument, the counter to that would be, why did you have the kid then? \n\nYes your life is more selfless now and mostly in service to another, but were the reasons for having the kid selfless or were they for yourself?  \n\nExcluding an accidental pregnancy or adoption of a sibling\u2019s kids, I can see that being neutral and more selfless respectively.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "kberud0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbes0af",
                    "author": "Vegasgiants",
                    "body": "Then as you say any action is selfish if it benefits you.  The word becomes pointless",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbes16g",
                    "author": "ReOsIr10",
                    "body": "Selfishness, as used in everyday conversation, implies some degree of disregard of the well-being others. Even if, for the majority of parents, the decision to have a child is motivated by what the parents want, it\u2019s not common that they *disregard* the well-being of the child. Parents generally believe they will provide a good life, or at least one worth living, to their child.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbescge",
                    "author": "sdbest",
                    "body": "Having children is, at its core, a biological impulse resulting from evolution. Not only do human beings have 'children,' but so do all other species. Are they 'selfish,' too?\n\nSo, I'm not sure how having children is 'selfish,' whatever that means in the context of your view. \n\nAnd, just a quibble, there seems to be some word choices in your comment that make it, for me, less clear than perhaps you intended.\n\nYou write, for example, \"You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish.\" Your meaning is not clear to me.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeusrs",
                    "author": "Severe-Bicycle-9469",
                    "body": "I have seen people argue for having children because it continues legacy, carry your name, leave a piece of you behind, you have someone to care for you when you are older. All of those I would consider mostly varying degrees of selfish reasons to bring a life into the world.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "kbescge"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbese8t",
                    "author": "DeltaBlues82",
                    "body": "I grew up very poor. I had 3 jobs by the time I was 16, while I was still in school.\n\nI wanted to share my life with a mini-me, but give them a better experience than I had. Honestly my life kicks ass, but my wife and my dogs never made me feel like my family was complete. So adding more love, more life was something we get was the right choice for us.\n\nSo we had kids and now I work my ass off so they don\u2019t have to. Work is my love language. And I show and teach them as much cool shit about the world as I can. Cause life kicks ass and we should all appreciate it for what it is.\n\nHaving kids is selfish, but as you mentioned, you could argue basically every choice we make is.\n\nBut being selfish, like all things, lies somewhere on a spectrum from none to all. Some people treat kids like little fashion accessories. Some put them to work.\n\nSome just want to share this awesome experience with someone else who will appreciate it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf2bxa",
                    "author": "could_not_care_more",
                    "body": "This all sounds lovely, except:\n\n>So we had kids and now I work my ass off so they don\u2019t have to. Work is my love language.\n\nMaybe you know this, but just in case (because my parent took too long to realise this, and our otherwise good relationship is still not as close as it should be):\n\nWork is most likely not your children's love language. \n\nDon't forget to show them love in their language (for almost all kids it's physical touch/cuddles, words of affirmation, and doing things together like cooking or reading or exploring), because kids don't feel the love unless you are there to show it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbese8t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbet1b4",
                    "author": "ManufacturerSea7907",
                    "body": "Having kids is quite literally a duty you have to the world and your species. It\u2019s the entire point of the human race. If that\u2019s selfish, every single thing you could possibly do is selfish.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeuemk",
                    "author": "AdamantForeskin",
                    "body": "I hate it when people frame it as a \u201cduty\u201d\n\nThere are over 8 billion people on this planet, our species will be fine if OP doesn\u2019t have kids",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "kbet1b4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbet444",
                    "author": "Ballatik",
                    "body": "Your argument proves that having children can be selfish, but not that it always is or must be.  Using another person only for your benefit is selfish whether they are your kid or not.  However there are plenty of things we do that require other people that usually aren\u2019t considered selfish.  Conversations, friendships, consensual sex, trade, etc.\n\nAs a very basic argument: I generally enjoy my life.  I don\u2019t think I am an outlier.  Therefore, I think that the average person generally enjoys their life.  Based on that it is reasonable to assume that my children will generally enjoy their life.  While it\u2019s impossible to get their consent beforehand, it\u2019s entirely possible that I can have kids for their own benefit.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbev2ds",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Which is what? They don't consent. (Obviously) So it can't be for their benefit?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "kbet444"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeu846",
                    "author": "Cautious_Speaker_451",
                    "body": "Having children is not  only  selfish, but it is immoral.\nYou must go to the /r/antinatalism/ page and see it by yourself.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeuwie",
                    "author": "kevinwestern777",
                    "body": "This seems like a wild stretch. \n\nUnless you leave a completely independent and self sustaining life (like in the woods and grow your own food), chances are you rely on people to make your life enjoyable. And where do you think those younger people putting food on the shelf in the store will come from when you\u2019re 80? They don\u2019t just appear, they have to be raised. \n\nAnyways, I\u2019d love to learn more about this viewpoint as it\u2019s just so completely foreign to me.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "kbeu846"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeubhp",
                    "author": "NorthernStarLV",
                    "body": "Despite all the talk about the world being overpopulated and all that, there are countries and societies that suffer from long-term depopulation caused by low birthrates. People with patriotic feelings towards such a country might view procreation as essential for the long-term survival of their culture and nation and therefore choose to have children even though they might otherwise prefer to avoid all the hassle and expenses of bringing them up. Knowingly inconveniencing yourself for the overall benefit of society would be the opposite of selfish, no?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeurpl",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "are there people who genuinely do it for their community or is it \"I want MY culture to survive\"",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbeubhp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeuf9k",
                    "author": "LaCroixLimon",
                    "body": "neither of these situations are selfish. Having children is just a biological function thats coded into our brains.  Not everyone wants to do it.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeumz5",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "But its your desires. Most people do plan to have kids. Its a conscious thing",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbeuf9k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeuuum",
                    "author": "Hydraulis",
                    "body": "I agree, in our day and age, producing more people is a ridiculous thing to do.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf693n",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Hydraulis \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Hydraulis&message=Hydraulis%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/-/kbeuuum/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbeuuum"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbev4in",
                    "author": "Veg0ku",
                    "body": "You could say everything we do is selfish. Even if that is true, something are more worth doing than some other things. \n\nI think it is a better thing to have a committed relationship and have children, than sitting alone playing video-games and watching anime.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbev7py",
                    "author": "Greyattimes",
                    "body": "I have never heard of someone with children saying that \"child-free\" people are selfish. This doesn't seem like a typical viewpoint of people without children.\n\nNeither choice is selfish. Everyone has their reasons.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbew18g",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": ">When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWho laid and marked the trail?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbexfr6",
                    "author": "CashMikey",
                    "body": "* Society would literally cease to exist if nobody kids. Having children is part of continuing the existence of the species. Doing your part for that is not selfish\n* I prefer existing to not existing. Most people do! That's why the vast majority of people never commit suicide. Through that lens, it is tough to argue that having a child is simply for one's own benefit. The child gets to exist, that is a benefit to them in addition to the parents",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeyyl2",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "the child wouldn't care not existing when it hasn't existed yet",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbexfr6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbexxu5",
                    "author": "DustErrant",
                    "body": ">All the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'.  \n>  \n>Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person.\n\nIf you recognize the simple fact that having kids requires 2 people, you should also recognize this. Many people have kids, not because they think, \"I want kids\", but because their partner wants kids. In this case, they are choosing to sacrifice their time, life, and energy for the wants of their spouse, not their own selfish wants.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbexyh5",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": "I do not put my kids to work on my farm or in other capacity.  I put the interests of my kids above my own interests.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbey020",
                    "author": "LAKnapper",
                    "body": ">When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nUntil you fall and break your ankle",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbezgi0",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "But those helping me would still consent. None of the children will ever choose whether they want to be a parents child or not",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "kbey020"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbey3kv",
                    "author": "hsanj19",
                    "body": "I agree and won't try to change your mind. Having kids is a selfish decision. You do it because you want to....for some reason or the other, with the most innocent one being having the instinctive desire to have a child. More sinister reasons also exist.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf689f",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/hsanj19 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20hsanj19&message=hsanj19%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/-/kbey3kv/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbey3kv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbeyfdb",
                    "author": "AggressiveTap9781",
                    "body": "The main argument of your claim is \u201chaving children is selfish, but not the same way as other activities, it\u2019s selfish on another level because, quote, it always be the child paying\u201c.\n\nAs far as I understand from your text you\u2019re focused on the \u201cpaying\u201d part, as the one distinguishing the activity called \u201chaving children\u201d from other activities (which arguably are all things we do)\n\nI assume that the word \u201cpay\u201d comes from the idea that children will be used as \u201ccheap labor\u201d or a mere tool to satisfy some other needs of their parents. Also the word \u201cpay\u201d might be referencing to idea that life equals suffering and children pay with their suffering for the selfishness of their parents.\n\nBoth claims are based on some assumptions about the life of a child.\n\nAs soon as children are not used as labor or tool and as soon as children start living lives which they enjoy, your whole claim breaks apart.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbez13b",
                    "author": "Annekire",
                    "body": "I think if the planet wasn't burning and full of so much needless suffering from colonization to capitalist mindset of profit over people to rampant abuse of women and girls. It would be a graceful act to bring new life into such a world filled with peace, love, space for understanding and mutual respect. There would be an element of selfishness there but it doesn't have to be bad or parasitic like we see in society (Personal boundaries are an example of good selfishness). But as it is the hell it is right now...it is a very naive act imo.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf2cto",
                    "author": "Own-Alternative-4885",
                    "body": "If kids were only had to be future labor in society and having them is selfish, than paying taxes that contribute to society\u2019s functioning is also selfish.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf3xkt",
                    "author": "AdventSign",
                    "body": "I\u2019m unsure how OP is wrong about it. Everyone else is skirting around the main point. Whether \u201cbiological reasons\u201d or because \u201cthey want to give their child a better like than them\u2026 at the core, they\u2019re right objectively.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf6530",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/AdventSign \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20AdventSign&message=AdventSign%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/-/kbf3xkt/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbf3xkt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf4ga6",
                    "author": "Izawwlgood",
                    "body": "\\>All the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWouldn't the fact that kids 100% require another person, and produces another person that is reliant on you, be an example of something that is 100% self\\*less\\*? That is, my life is now dedicated entirely to the support and care of someone OTHER than myself?",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf5hnb",
                    "author": "Hatook123",
                    "body": "Everything is selfish. Nothing anyone ever does is truly selfless.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf6a3z",
                    "author": "Successful_Panda8762",
                    "body": "Let's consider, for the sake of argument, a couple that planned having a child and are sufficiently good parents.  \nThe fact that their actions, for at least most of the days of one or two decades, will be directly or indirectly related to the healthy development of a being with no autonomy and that they often sacrifice their own personal well-being to this goal shows selflessness in practice. That does not depend on why de decision of having kids were made.  \nIt seems, when you claim the action is selfish because it requires another person, you're not taking into account that in families with a minimum of structure the kid is the one who will require, need, depend on their parents, who will provide (will \"pay\" for it), etc., not otherwise.   \nEven in these cases it might be argued the parents have selfish reasons i.e pleasure, care when they get old. That seems right but not near enough to state that parents are selfish. If that would be so, only saints and priests, monks and such wouldn't be selfish, which is not a good parameter for the discussion.  \nYour conclusions seem to be valid, the problem lies on the premises they start from. Exceptions (shitty parenting in a degree that it equates to kidnapping) do not prove the rule.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbf6fm9",
                    "author": "myersdr1",
                    "body": "The desire to have kids may be selfish.  \n\nActually having kids is everything but selfish as you no longer have your own life to think about and if anything some of your dreams and goals are put on hold for a minimum of 8-10 years before you can even think about those previous dreams and goals you had.\n\nThere is a reason why people make the joke about your life being over once you have kids.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfciqy",
                    "author": "tacitus_killygore",
                    "body": "Based entirely on \"you have no necessity for a child\", then sure it's selfish. If we expand that logic, we would come to some weird ends that I don't think you or the majority of people would agree with (e.g. literally everything above absolute minimum caloric intake would be a selfish act). This idea would also be fine if it was purely in a semantic or tautological sense. If we are just defining selfish as something that we don't \"need\" then you're absolutely right. The only issue is that it feels like this argument is now an intuition pump or a bait and switch. For example: if we define a slave as someone who is beholden to another, then you would be slave if you borrowed lunch money. Technically, in this sequence, it would be correct to call you a slave; but the issue would then arise where the modern connotations of slavery will seep into the understanding of this scenario.\n\nRegardless of this, the idea sounds kind of malformed to me because import elements to the equation are nonexistant.\nFrom some of the other comments and hiking example, it seems to me that consent is the action you want to put emphasis on. And I would agree with that idea when talking about an existent entity. The issue to me here is that there isn't an existent entity; not in body, not in mind, not in even the most liberal definition of agency (unless you want to pull some mormon, hindu, etc. type theology)\n\nHow can you be \"kidnapping\" one that doesn't exist yet?\nHow can you gain or violate the consent of \"something\" that can not have those attributes? I put something in quotations because even that word implies some form of existence. We aren't talking about a thing yet, rather it's an idea of a thing that will eventually exist via reproduction.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfe006",
                    "author": "ThinkWeather",
                    "body": "In the 80s, 2 people decided to have sex. Now I have to go to work with my disabilities, then ignore the climate crisis, and not be able to afford housing :( I really hope my mother fills \u201cfulfilled\u201d.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfeinz",
                    "author": "Noctudeit",
                    "body": "Having children in the modern world is anything but selfish. Kids are almost always a net liability to parents, even if they end up providing support in senescence.\n\nMore to the point, having children is literally how almost all species are propegated on the planet. It is neither inherently selfish nor selfless, it just *is*.\n\nAll creatures on this earth must labor in some way to survive. Working on a family farm is just one way to accomplish this goal. There is nothing wrong with kids supporting their family, and arguably it is generally in their interest to do so due to the support/community/resources that the family provides.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfktrx",
                    "author": "dieseljeanqueen",
                    "body": "This is such a tired argument. People make life decisions based on what they want, that\u2019s just how we work. Just because you give yourself something that you want, doesn\u2019t mean you\u2019re selfish. Selfishness involves making decisions based on what you want at the EXPENSE of others. Some parents have kids when they aren\u2019t fit to do so, which is selfish, but some are many excellent parents who put their kids well being above all. Whether or not you have kids is not an indicator of how selfish or selfless you are, there\u2019s a lot of context needed to make that judgement.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfnzvn",
                    "author": "HottestGoblin",
                    "body": "This opinion is absolutely peak Reddit.  Good job OP.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfrss5",
                    "author": "ElectricalJelly1331",
                    "body": "To keep human race alive requires parenthood.  It takes a shitload of selflessness to be a parent and people who never do it dont make the sacrifice.   So its selfish in a way    Doesnt mean all childless people are jerks for it just means they didnt put in their dues in keeping us alive",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfs0pq",
                    "author": "ElectricalJelly1331",
                    "body": "Which is why human sex drive exists and natural pull to want to have a baby.   Its for our own survival    If no one wanted parenthood we are doomed",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbfs6ol",
                    "author": "ElectricalJelly1331",
                    "body": "Its rotten to have kids and foist them off on others as in foster kids or bad parenting",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbg1141",
                    "author": "Sad_Razzmatazzle",
                    "body": "You put a moral judgement in your title, called \u2018the opposing side\u2019 selfish, then immediately claimed it\u2019s not a moral judgement and you\u2019re just curious? Most genuinely curious people don\u2019t begin by calling the people they\u2019re trying to \u2018learn from\u2019 selfish.\n\nI doubt you are actually open to anyone changing your view, but just in case:\n\nThere are so many valid and selfless reasons to have children. They are extremely personal and inherently subjective. Reproductive choices are morally neutral, as it is the motives behind the choices that make all the difference.\n\nFor example, if a mother works hard to financially, physically, and emotionally prepare to raise children, she is not selfish. She has done hard work that many do not so that she can devote herself to raising a child. Then, the (at least) 18 years of sacrificing her own wants and needs for her he sake of that child. I would in fact classify her as selfLESS.\n\nIf a mother gets pregnant on a whim or by accident and then does not adequately care for the child? That is indeed selfish. But it is the lack of care that makes this choice selfish, not the fact that the child was born.\n\nMany childfree people claim to be selfless \u2014 except their main reason for not having children is so they can continue an independent lifestyle and \u2018do whatever they want\u2019. That is literally the definition of selfish.\n\nThere are also childfree people who don\u2019t have kids because they don\u2019t want to pass on a genetic disorder, or because they are not in a place where they could realistically provide for a child, even if they may want one. In that case, giving up their desire to have a child is selfless.\n\nGiving birth is not equivalent to kidnapping; that\u2019s a false equivalency fallacy. Love will NEVER be irrelevant, particularly when a developing brain in a familial context is involved.\n\nTl;dr: the reasons behind the choice to give birth make one selfish or selfless, not the choice itself.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbg3auq",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "Selfishness isn't a bad good statement. Its a \"an I doing it for myself or for someone else\" statement",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbg1141"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbg9eij",
                    "author": "phoenixthekat",
                    "body": "By your logic, the statements \"I want to help the needy\" and \"I want to give all my money to charity\" are selfish because it is based on your personal desire.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbgsnhk",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "There are plenty of religious people who have children because they believe child birth is a miracle of life and their religious texts morally compel to have children. You could say that they are looking out for their self interest in not wanting to go to hell but that sorta leads to your point that everything is selfish.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbhbm0d",
                    "author": "jammin_halapeno",
                    "body": "Frankly, a lack of children will disrupt the population pyramid and force the next generation to excessively subsidize the parents retirement and otherwise mess up economics. Not having kids is socially irresponsible because the supply of labor will dwindle and cause hardship on the next generation. Ideally everyone will have enough kids to keep the population stable.",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbheo3m",
                    "author": "atxarchitect91",
                    "body": "So your proposal is the collapse of the modern economic system because you believe propaganda that the world is going to end and everything isn\u2019t pretty awesome relative to any time in history. This mentality is evil. If you are smart then you have a duty to procreate or atleast teach the next generation to be successful and intelligent",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbienrh",
                    "author": "EntropyCat4",
                    "body": "I wouldn't say it is selfish but completely irresponsible to have children in today's world.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbmb3yn",
                    "author": "altern8goodguy",
                    "body": "My kids are better than everyone else's so my kids are an altruistic gift to humanity. My only regret is not having more to give.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbmexej",
                    "author": "Ant1chr1st-Sup3rstar",
                    "body": "It isn't when it's to continue the human species. It's only selfish if you think your genetics actually belong to you and not the ancestors who diverged from the common ancestor of us and chimpies",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbs1dhl",
                    "author": "snarky00",
                    "body": "By your logic isn\u2019t it selfish to donate to a charity of your choice? Lots of people are probably doing it because it makes them feel good. But that\u2019s kind of irrelevant because ultimately it makes the world better.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "187kbxo",
                    "author": "donotholdyourbreath",
                    "body": "This is not a post about moral judgement. I am simply trying to see people who view childfree people as selfish but not when it comes to having kids.\n\nOften the argument is 'everyone does it' or 'we have a purpose'. \n\nAll the reasons people have kids boil down to 'I want'. Now you could argue every action is selfish. Sure. However, having kids is an action that 100% requires another person. When i go hiking, I don't require another person.\n\nWith children, in some cases, it will always be the child paying. (ie a child born for the use of labour) I'm not saying everyone does it. But throughout history, yes, kids were only there for labour on the farm. \n\nTo me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish. ",
                    "date": "2023-11-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Having kids is selfish",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/187kbxo/cmv_having_kids_is_selfish/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kd9ru3w",
                    "author": "Rootbugger",
                    "body": ">To me it's like kidnapping someone and using them for your farm. Love is irrelevant. You may grow to love them, but that doesn't mean your action was selfish.\n\nDid you mean \"... but that doesn't mean your action was not selfish.\"? Leaving out or putting in the \"not\" makes a difference: I know this concept may have blown your mind, but there it is.",
                    "date": "2023-12-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "187kbxo"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "188h3zh",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkk8if",
                "author": "ququqachu",
                "body": "As an amateur coder, it's already challenging enough to figure out when I should be counting from 1 and when I should be counting from 0. Now you want to introduce ANOTHER counting system?? Confusing!\n\nAdditionally, there are plenty of scenarios in which you might be counting something that doesn't have a plural. If you're searching through a list, counting instances of some item on that list, you might only find one instance\u2014and that's still worth counting.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 44,
                "parent_id": "188h3zh"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkwc2s",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "In the post I already commented that leaving computers/coding as is would be acceptable, since assumptions cannot be made in computers.\n\n>So, we could start counting at 5\n\nAh, I didn't go far enough. I like it. !Delta.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": "kbkk8if"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkwfgh",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ququqachu ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ququqachu)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbkwc2s"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklc5p",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbks7js",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": "One man band",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kbklc5p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklgma",
                    "author": "Drexelhand",
                    "body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkm50g",
                    "author": "Brainsonastick",
                    "body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me \u201chow many eggs do you have?\u201d\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbktyl5",
                    "author": "DeathDestroyer90",
                    "body": "I egg",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbkm50g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkmu4s",
                    "author": "CBL44",
                    "body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkyz0n",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkmu4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbknnwu",
                    "author": "2r1t",
                    "body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkwks4",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "kbknnwu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkocbw",
                    "author": "boney_blue",
                    "body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n  \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl09im",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkocbw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkp96u",
                    "author": "BronzeSpoon89",
                    "body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkxuq8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkp96u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqs6u",
                    "author": "Creative-Pop2154",
                    "body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbky465",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqs6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqyhj",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkynz0",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqyhj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqzcz",
                    "author": "FlyingNFireType",
                    "body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl9dyt",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqzcz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkrrb2",
                    "author": "Salanmander",
                    "body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl43to",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkrrb2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkspdl",
                    "author": "MeanderingDuck",
                    "body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl478c",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkspdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbms5lj",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrp73w",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbms5lj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbn1d1s",
                    "author": "ObviousSea9223",
                    "body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrquzi",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbn1d1s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbne9na",
                    "author": "ranman1990",
                    "body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrs6gy",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbne9na"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo2scx",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "Wouldn\u2019t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you\u2019re using?\n\nFor example, most people don\u2019t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrq2g9",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects  (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo2scx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo9fv5",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrpvl8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo9fv5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwl03g",
                    "author": "franciosmardi",
                    "body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner,  and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvi50",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwl03g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwta0p",
                    "author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
                    "body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvpkg",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwta0p"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "188h3zh",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkm3pz",
                "author": "XenoRyet",
                "body": "Let's look at the Natural numbers.  Doesn't get more discrete than that, does it?\n\nNow, let's say we want to count those numbers.  Obviously we can't, because there are infinitely many of them, but let's say we just want to get started and see how far we can get.\n\nWhich number is the first one we count?  I bet it's not two.  This is because counting is a process, not a quantity.  You begin that process by enumerating the first item being counted, and ends when you have enumerated all items in the set.  So even in sets that contain only a single item, you still begin counting that set with that first item.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 9,
                "parent_id": "188h3zh"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkx61d",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "I should have phrased it as discrete objects instead of discrete units, which would have excluded the natural number set since a number is an abstraction rather than an object.\n\n!Delta for pointing out that counting abstractions doesn't require  an assumed 1 as a starting point.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbkm3pz"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkxayz",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/XenoRyet ([18\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/XenoRyet)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbkx61d"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklc5p",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbks7js",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": "One man band",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kbklc5p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklgma",
                    "author": "Drexelhand",
                    "body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkm50g",
                    "author": "Brainsonastick",
                    "body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me \u201chow many eggs do you have?\u201d\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbktyl5",
                    "author": "DeathDestroyer90",
                    "body": "I egg",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbkm50g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkmu4s",
                    "author": "CBL44",
                    "body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkyz0n",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkmu4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbknnwu",
                    "author": "2r1t",
                    "body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkwks4",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "kbknnwu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkocbw",
                    "author": "boney_blue",
                    "body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n  \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl09im",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkocbw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkp96u",
                    "author": "BronzeSpoon89",
                    "body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkxuq8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkp96u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqs6u",
                    "author": "Creative-Pop2154",
                    "body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbky465",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqs6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqyhj",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkynz0",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqyhj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqzcz",
                    "author": "FlyingNFireType",
                    "body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl9dyt",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqzcz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkrrb2",
                    "author": "Salanmander",
                    "body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl43to",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkrrb2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkspdl",
                    "author": "MeanderingDuck",
                    "body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl478c",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkspdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbms5lj",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrp73w",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbms5lj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbn1d1s",
                    "author": "ObviousSea9223",
                    "body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrquzi",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbn1d1s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbne9na",
                    "author": "ranman1990",
                    "body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrs6gy",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbne9na"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo2scx",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "Wouldn\u2019t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you\u2019re using?\n\nFor example, most people don\u2019t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrq2g9",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects  (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo2scx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo9fv5",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrpvl8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo9fv5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwl03g",
                    "author": "franciosmardi",
                    "body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner,  and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvi50",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwl03g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwta0p",
                    "author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
                    "body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvpkg",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwta0p"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "188h3zh",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbkrksl",
                "author": "destro23",
                "body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\n\"Hey son, see that tangle of Christmas lights? Straighten them out and see how many there are wound up in there.\"\n\n\"Hey day, there's only one.\"\n\nAlternatively:\n\n[Drop and give me 20!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=njnNSmoht-E)",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "188h3zh"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbl5frh",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "For the pushups, that would fall under the delta I gave \\u\\Mitoza for counting things as they come into existence (your completed pushups don't exist until you perform them).\n\n!Delta for the lights though. It is a singular discrete unit that isn't obvious at a glance.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbkrksl"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbl5jmk",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/destro23 ([306\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/destro23)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbl5frh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklc5p",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbks7js",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": "One man band",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kbklc5p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklgma",
                    "author": "Drexelhand",
                    "body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkm50g",
                    "author": "Brainsonastick",
                    "body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me \u201chow many eggs do you have?\u201d\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbktyl5",
                    "author": "DeathDestroyer90",
                    "body": "I egg",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbkm50g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkmu4s",
                    "author": "CBL44",
                    "body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkyz0n",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkmu4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbknnwu",
                    "author": "2r1t",
                    "body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkwks4",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "kbknnwu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkocbw",
                    "author": "boney_blue",
                    "body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n  \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl09im",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkocbw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkp96u",
                    "author": "BronzeSpoon89",
                    "body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkxuq8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkp96u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqs6u",
                    "author": "Creative-Pop2154",
                    "body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbky465",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqs6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqyhj",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkynz0",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqyhj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqzcz",
                    "author": "FlyingNFireType",
                    "body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl9dyt",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqzcz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkrrb2",
                    "author": "Salanmander",
                    "body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl43to",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkrrb2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkspdl",
                    "author": "MeanderingDuck",
                    "body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl478c",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkspdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbms5lj",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrp73w",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbms5lj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbn1d1s",
                    "author": "ObviousSea9223",
                    "body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrquzi",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbn1d1s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbne9na",
                    "author": "ranman1990",
                    "body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrs6gy",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbne9na"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo2scx",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "Wouldn\u2019t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you\u2019re using?\n\nFor example, most people don\u2019t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrq2g9",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects  (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo2scx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo9fv5",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrpvl8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo9fv5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwl03g",
                    "author": "franciosmardi",
                    "body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner,  and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvi50",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwl03g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwta0p",
                    "author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
                    "body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvpkg",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwta0p"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "188h3zh",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbl2x6m",
                "author": "jatjqtjat",
                "body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nhumans can usually intuit numbers up to about 5 without counting.  If i have 5 apples, you can know that i have 5 just by looking at them.  For 5 or less things, you don't need to count.\n\nIf i have 8 apples you can know that i have 8 by seeing two groups 5 and 3.  You still don't need to count.\n\nIf I have 30 apples you have to count to see how many I have.  Even with grouping, you cannot just see the number.  At this point the way counting works is that you assign a number to each apple and when you have no apples left, the last number used is the number of apples I have.  If you started at 2 that system would not work right.\n\nIf you just skip saying 1 on the first apple and start on apple number 2, then keep going in that fashion and you'll be counting by 2s.  2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and this is often a faster way to count.  \n\nand since you can intuited up to about 5 things, and because we use a 10 based number system, you can easily count by 5s:  5, 10, 15, 20.  Its very fast especially if you don't care about being off by a small amount.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "188h3zh"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbl87lf",
                "author": "Tuvinator",
                "body": "Already awarded a delta for intuiting up to 5 to \\u\\ququqachu. Counting by 2s or 5s being an option I didn't think of is also very good though. !Delta.",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbl2x6m"
            },
            {
                "id": "kbl8bxe",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/jatjqtjat ([205\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/jatjqtjat)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-01",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kbl87lf"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklc5p",
                    "author": "CallMeCorona1",
                    "body": "Counter-Examples:\n\n1. Army of one\n2. Commitee of one",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbks7js",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": "One man band",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kbklc5p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbklgma",
                    "author": "Drexelhand",
                    "body": ">you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item.\n\nif you have X of an item and it turns out to be 1 then it shouldn't be counted because you should have known it was only 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkm50g",
                    "author": "Brainsonastick",
                    "body": "My partner and I are baking. She asks me \u201chow many eggs do you have?\u201d\n\nI open the carton and count them. I only have one egg.\n\nWhat do I tell her?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbktyl5",
                    "author": "DeathDestroyer90",
                    "body": "I egg",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kbkm50g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkmu4s",
                    "author": "CBL44",
                    "body": "Why not 3? The simple point is you are never going to be counting if you only have two of said item. \n\nTheoretical it could be faster to start at 2 in your head but that not how our brains work. I point at every item and give a number because that's how my brain works. I could train it differently but why would I just to gain half a second?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkyz0n",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "If you are counting a lot, half seconds add up.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkmu4s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbknnwu",
                    "author": "2r1t",
                    "body": "I go to order supplies for the office. Some of the items will show a count of 1. The packing slip will show 1 of 1 or 0 of 1 depending on if it was in stock at the time of shipping. The invoice will show the same 1 count for items received which is then multipled by the per unit cost.\n\nThis is routine business where counts of 1 occur all the time.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkwks4",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Arguably when you are counting x out of y that is no longer discrete, but fractional, even if the x/y math equals an integer value.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "kbknnwu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkocbw",
                    "author": "boney_blue",
                    "body": ">The simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\n  \nI mean this just isn't true. I can tell someone to count how many boxes we have left, and the answer could be zero, one, or more than one. But when you are counting, the assumption that there is at least one of an item is not inherently true.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl09im",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "When you tell someone to check how many boxes are left, they will immediately tell at a glance if there is only one or none left. They will only count if there are more.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkocbw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkp96u",
                    "author": "BronzeSpoon89",
                    "body": "I think you are incorrect because \"you are never going to be counting if you HAVE ZERO OF THEM.\"",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkxuq8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Seeing that only one item is present is clear at quick glance, which is why you wouldn't be counting at that point. /u/ququqachu pointed out that 5 is visible at quick glance, which would make my argument that hypothetically we should start counting at 5 (or 6 really since 5 is obvious)",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkp96u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqs6u",
                    "author": "Creative-Pop2154",
                    "body": "I'm so confused, so are you saying that when counting out loud you just start with 2 but otherwise it's the same? Or are you actually saying that if there are, let's say, 3 items, you go \"2, 3, 4\" and end with 4 as your count?\n\nThe first one is basically the most useless idea I've ever seen someone write an entire post about, and the second one is just wrong for obvious reasons.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbky465",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "I was saying the first. Useless or not, it's an idea that's been rolling through my head for a bit, and other people have already shown me that I didn't consider it thoroughly enough.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqs6u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqyhj",
                    "author": "Gladix",
                    "body": ">Places where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: Counting time in music:[...]\n\nWhy have multiple counting systems? Why not just use the one method even if it isn't the most optimal for every and all purposes?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkynz0",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "We already have multiple counting systems, I am merely proposing adjusting one of them.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqyhj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkqzcz",
                    "author": "FlyingNFireType",
                    "body": "I've done inventory, if it's 1 you need to write down 1, if it's 0 (and there's a spot for it) you write down 0",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl9dyt",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "But are you counting when you are writing down that 0/1? You are glancing, you see that there is 1 or 0, and writing it down. The action of counting isn't being performed.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkqzcz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkrrb2",
                    "author": "Salanmander",
                    "body": "I'm not entirely clear on what you're suggesting. Is the change you're suggesting just \"if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\"? Or are you suggesting a wider-reaching change than that?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl43to",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">if you are counting objects, you should always skip the first object and say or think 'two' as the first number word you use\n\nPrecisely that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkrrb2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbkspdl",
                    "author": "MeanderingDuck",
                    "body": "And this accomplishes what, exactly? Counting is a straightforward process, why needlessly complicate it like this?",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbl478c",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Does it need to accomplish anything? You are aware of the one, so counting it is needless.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbkspdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbms5lj",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "We have a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers. How many are currently in port on the Eastern Seaboard.\n\nAnswer: 1",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrp73w",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Did you count to 1 there, or just glance and know there was 1?",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbms5lj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbn1d1s",
                    "author": "ObviousSea9223",
                    "body": "Computers do need to deal in 0s and 1s, because they're using binary variables. The use of binary *numbers* comes from that, so they're analogs to the fact of binary states. A bit is fundamentally defined by the concept of 0/1. Renaming those numbers to anything else doesn't change what it is. A fundamental 1 and a fundamental 0.\n\nSo far, I think you agree.\n\nBut this is actually true everywhere else, too, when we're talking about discrete objects. It comes down to 0/1. One is defined against 0. Before you have 1, you have 0. If you count one object, you're actually counting from an implied zero to a one.\n\nSo you can't start at one, either. You actually have to start at 0. When you start at 1, you're counting from an implied zero, fundamentally. You went from 0 to 1 thing. It's important that we already don't jump the gun, and I'll explain why.\n\nImagine you're asked how many sheep are in the pen. There's two sheep. So would start at 0 and say \"One, two...two sheep.\" *Sounds* like starting at 1, right? Now, imagine there are no sheep in the pen, which is entirely reasonable with discrete objects. Do you start at 1 and then count -1 to get 0 sheep? Did you find a negative sheep to count in that process? Or actually work backwards, reflexively? Hopefully not. Why jump the gun? To get to one, you have to scan, identify a sheep, and then add it to the total. You finished the scan and did not identify a sheep, so you counted 0 sheep in the pen. This shouldn't leave you with an error, like you can't express or comprehend how many sheep are in the pen because there are none. It's just zero, which is exactly as natural as one.\n\nThat's where we start counting. So, you can't start at two. You can't even truly start at one. Of course, you can start making sounds out of your face hole at any number. Or none at all. After all, zero is always a possible count.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrquzi",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The zero is an implied count in your example (even though as you say we start \"counting\" at 1, which sure, I agree with that). When you are looking at all the items present an counting, I am saying that the 1 can be implied also, since you can see that it's there and there are more than one. If you can't see that it's there, then you know you have zero, and you aren't counting that. If you can see only 1 is there, it's an obvious (since I looked up the term for someone else) subitizing action, and you don't actually count that one. You only actually start counting from higher numbers (5 being the suggested value from other people). This is only applicable when you can see all the items present. If you can't see them at the start, then they are only instantiating for you as you come across them, in which case subitizing doesn't happen and you are indeed counting from 1 or 0 as you would say.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbn1d1s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbne9na",
                    "author": "ranman1990",
                    "body": "A simple counter argument:\n\nSome times you count things and do not know if there is zero, 1 or more than 1.\n\nExample: you want into a grocery and count how many of every item. You see a bike next to the door. You mark one then continue. It has a real chance of being the only bike there yet you didn't know that at the start so you still need to mark one.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrs6gy",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta to /u/Mitoza for items coming into existence (from your perspective, they obviously already exist).",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbne9na"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo2scx",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "Wouldn\u2019t this cause a lot of confusion between what system you\u2019re using?\n\nFor example, most people don\u2019t realize that years are ordinal numbers, meaning that there is no year 0 and against popular belief, the 21st century technically began at the start of 2001 not 2000. Adding another number system would produce more confusion like that without a clear benefits.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrq2g9",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "The number system isn't changing. You glance at a group of obviously discernible objects  (say a pile of apples) and you don't bother counting the 1 since you can see it's there, and just start counting 2 apples, 3 apples etc...",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo2scx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbo9fv5",
                    "author": "Guilty_Scar_730",
                    "body": "If you are counting moving objects or a disorganized group of objects, it is important to identify the first object in the count as #1 as to not count it again as you count the other objects.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbrpvl8",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": ">a disorganized group of objects\n\nGave a delta for this on Christmas lights to /u/destro23\n\n>it may be helpful to be able to identify if the object that was #1\n\nThis is essentially the same answer as /u/Can-Funny with regard to assigning rank, and gave them a delta for that.",
                    "date": "2023-12-02",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbo9fv5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwl03g",
                    "author": "franciosmardi",
                    "body": "So if I fart at the table after dinner,  and say, \"one\" to indicate I am counting my farts, did I count \"1\"?",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvi50",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Gave a delta for things that are coming into existence to /u/Mitoza",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwl03g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "188h3zh",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "Discrete being used to mean individual (and in context here, integer).\n\nThe simple point is that if you are counting items, you are never going to be counting if you only have one of said item. The one is always going to be present, you are only counting when #>1, so the one should be assumed.\n\nThe reason I am adding the discrete requirement is because you can add fractions to a discrete unit, and you might have 0 or more of said fraction, in which case 1 is not an assumed to always be present.\n\nPlaces where counting starting with 1 is acceptable: \nCounting time in music: In this case the number of beats is not really an item being counted, but rather a positional indicator for when notes should come in.\nArrays in computers: 1 (or 0 depending on language) are positional indicators, not a count. As for loop counters, you don't want your computer making assumptions for you, so you need to define assumed things, including a starting at 1 for count of values.",
                    "date": "2023-12-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Counting discrete units should start from the number two.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/188h3zh/cmv_counting_discrete_units_should_start_from_the/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbwta0p",
                    "author": "AdamSchiffIsaPedo",
                    "body": "One always being present doesn't mean that you're not going to count it. Are you literally saying you're not counting when you place the first item into your counted pile but you don't say anything? You have to say the number for it to be counting? That's silly.",
                    "date": "2023-12-03",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "188h3zh"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kbzvpkg",
                    "author": "Tuvinator",
                    "body": "That was essentially what I was saying. You skip the counting action mentally or verbally because you recognize that you have more items.",
                    "date": "2023-12-04",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kbwta0p"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "18kako4",
                "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                "date": "2023-12-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kdtfhjx",
                "author": "Adorable-Volume2247",
                "body": "\nBad experiences and trauma are opportunities for self-improvement, and often bring about a greater good. This is why pain exists, if you edit out (say) the memory of being burned by a hot stove, you'd do it again.\n\nNot to mention, if this existed, it would become a tool for oppression and abuse. If no one remembered the Holocaust or chattle Slavery, would society be better?",
                "date": "2023-12-17",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "18kako4"
            },
            {
                "id": "kdu0h0u",
                "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                "body": "Very good points. I guess erasing bad memories could cause more problems than they solve. !delta",
                "date": "2023-12-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kdtfhjx"
            },
            {
                "id": "kdu0koo",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Adorable-Volume2247 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Adorable-Volume2247)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-17",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kdu0h0u"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq1o1p",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "Well, if you can't remember ever being betrayed or failing, how will you handle situations where you could be betrayed or failing? Would you keep going under the assumption that it's impossible for you to be betrayed or fail? Wouldn't this cause you to become an overly-trusting, overconfident person?",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq1xch",
                    "author": "KokonutMonkey",
                    "body": "This belongs on an advice sub. \n\nEither way, you should abandon this view because it depends on the existence of something that does not actually exist. You might as well say I should move to the space colonies (as depicted in Mobile Suit Gundam) once they're built. \n\n>If there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nToo many IFs here. Who's to say they whoever makes this non-existent technology will not be able to work out the kinks before you die. It's possible you might be too old. It's possible it might be too expensive.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq39cv",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "As computers keep getting faster, technology will advance faster. I am confident that this technology will arrive while I'm still alive, barring a nuclear war.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "kdq1xch"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq260k",
                    "author": "AdhesiveSpinach",
                    "body": "Because it probably won't fix the problem. \n\nThe body remembers. Even if the mind forgets. That's why you can get people who sustained serious trauma in their childhood but don't actually have memories of the event, yet their bodies still react to triggers in the same way a person would if they remembered what happened to them. But, its almost worse because you don't really understand why you're having a trauma response or a somatic flashback, and its more difficult to work on because you don't even really know what happened to you. \n\nThe brain is very complex. You can erase higher level memories, but your reptile brain and body store information in a very different way.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq3ezm",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "Why do you call my brain and body reptilian?",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "kdq260k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq287o",
                    "author": "No-Produce-334",
                    "body": ">I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available.\n\nYou'll likely expire or get the totally not selective memory-erasing Alzheimer's before this happens. But hey, never say never I guess.\n\n>Combat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIt's not like Amnesia cures PTSD, and there are cases of people experiencing PTSD due to being traumatized in infancy by things they have no memory of themselves. I don't think that selectively erasing a memory would cure PTSD unless you also undo all synaptic pathways that formed as a result of the traumatization, not just the ones related specifically to the memory.\n\n>If there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues\n\nHow much are you considering long term side effects? How long will you wait until you've decided \"there's probably no negative effects?\" 5 years? 10? 20?\n\n>But is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWell it's not real. So I don't think anyone can answer that. You could watch the movie again maybe, it does kinda talk about why on a human level such technology is bad.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 18,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq2acx",
                    "author": "Lazy_Trash_6297",
                    "body": "we can already have trauma responses and triggers to things we don\u2019t properly remember. The experience gets locked into the body, and  certain triggers like smells, sights, or people activate the response even if we don\u2019t remember why. \n\nI know the selective memory treatment is imaginary but I don\u2019t see why it wouldn\u2019t create situations where certain events are still activating the trauma trigger without any understanding. It might help a person not ruminate in bad thoughts but it also might make it more difficult to heal because they don\u2019t understand what their body needs to heal from. \n\nPlus the whole point of SMET is it\u2019s a way to avoid learning how to heal ourselves. I get that there are some scars that are so bad they\u2019d be better off erased, but we also cannot avoid bad memories and have to learn how to deal with them in healthy ways.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq2cue",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "I suppose there are certain experiences like combat or sexual assault that you\u2019d unequivocally want to get rid of. However, by and large, bad memories are what make you grow as a person.\n\nFor example, let\u2019s say you\u2019re dating someone you really love, but they break up with you because you\u2019re not emotionally attentive enough.\n\nThe bad experience of the break-up is what would motivate you to become more emotionally attentive, so that next time you find yourself in a relationship, you won\u2019t repeat the same mistake.\n\nBut if you didn\u2019t remember your bad experiences, you simply continue to make the exact same mistakes over and over, and never learn or grow as a person.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq4hxs",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "Then please tell me what the personalities of people who grew up heavily pampered from a top-1% family are like these days? If every need was easily provided due to family being billionaires with corporate empires, and therefore they didn't have any significant hardships while growing up in very wealthy circumstances, what kind of person would they be by adulthood? Am I better off being the person I am now than to be like someone from a life where money was no object?",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kdq2cue"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq2gvz",
                    "author": "sailorbrendan",
                    "body": "The thing is that those memories and pains and failures... that's part of who you are. Without those, we have no way of knowing who you would be. Maybe it would be great, maybe you would be a monster, maybe you'd just be a little more naive. That's an unanswerable question. \n\nMost of the treatment for PTSD, which you referenced with soldiers comes down to helping them re-frame the trauma in a way that they can process better. There's a bunch of different tools for doing this, but none of it is about making people forget.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq5scq",
                    "author": "2r1t",
                    "body": "I love that movie. I find it difficult to see how that movie sold the proposed process as a positive. My take away was that those things we think we would want to erase will only, at best, hinder our ability to grow and move on.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdqdg5y",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "That memory erasure treatment could still help suicidal people, right?",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "kdq5scq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq5vi8",
                    "author": "spiral8888",
                    "body": "I don't think human mind works like a computer where you can delete a single file and after that there is no trace of it or anything associated with it. Our minds are more complex and even if you were able to delete some details of the memory, the effects of your mind having processed that memory for months, years or decades is probably impossible to erase without erasing a lot more of your personality in the process.\n\nSo, you end up without the memory but also without a lot more of what you are. Basically a self inflicted dementia.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdq8c7u",
                    "author": "BitchyWitchy68",
                    "body": "I think that\u2019s why older people are so prone to mental illnesses.. a lifetime of bad memories can be tormenting. I suffer from that feeling sometimes.\ud83d\ude29",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdqpr6h",
                    "author": "Brainjacker",
                    "body": ">Why should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nBecause there is absolutely nothing indicating that this type of technology is possible, in development, or going to become available.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdqvs7x",
                    "author": "Adequate_Images",
                    "body": "The thing is, memory is too complicated for this to ever work. \n\nThink about your worst memory.  Then think about how many times and how many places you\u2019ve thought about it. \n\nHow many people you\u2019ve talked to about it.  Shared memories.  Family trauma.  \n\nTherapy is a much better (and real) option.  \n\nIf you want another movie to watch to show how Sadness and Joy go together watch Inside Out. \n\nYour memories make you who you are.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdr29ej",
                    "author": "Mindless_Wrap1758",
                    "body": "There has been a lot of promising research with recreational drugs including MDMA and magic mushrooms. People with PTSD are healing from therapy and psilocybin usage. That would be better than erasure, presumably, because if you just forgot you'd still have lots of problems, just without the memories.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdrijdn",
                    "author": "i-drink-isopropyl-91",
                    "body": "I have memory loss loosing your memories even if they are bad sucks I don\u2019t remember much past a year or so ago.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdsf1t5",
                    "author": "SeymoreButz38",
                    "body": "Isn't the point of that movie that they make the same mistakes over and over because they don't remember?",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdsfgww",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "Oh, that's what it was? Haven't seen it since 2014.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kdsf1t5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18kako4",
                    "author": "IDislikeHomonyms",
                    "body": "I'll patiently wait for selective memory-erasure treatments to become available. \n\nCombat veterans need this too. After all, what else causes their 22 suicides a day in America besides bad battlefield memories and flashbacks in their dreams?\n\nIf I could selectively erase all bad memories that I have no interest in keeping, would I become a happier, cheerier man? Or would there be some unintended side-effects that I'd be happy to do without?\n\nIf there are negative effects due to bugs and unforeseen issues, I'll wait longer for them to work out the kinks and re-release a better version of the SMET - Selective Memory Erasure Treatment.\n\nBut is there anything I should be aware of that would be the cons to undergoing this treatment, that cannot simply be updated with a patch/update/debugging of the treatment?\n\nWhy should I not undergo this once the means to make this treatment possible, become available?\n\nSince I assume I can't post links to YouTube from here, just search ***Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind official trailer*** on there to get a better idea of what I'm talking about.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: I really think I should get the selective memory-erasure treatment (as depicted in the Jim Carrey film \"Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind\") in order to erase all unwanted bad memories of betrayals, failures and so on, once it becomes available to the public.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18kako4/cmv_i_really_think_i_should_get_the_selective/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kdtlcnp",
                    "author": "CaptainONaps",
                    "body": "I often think about the remote in adam sandlers movie, Click. He just didn\u2019t use the remote correctly. He should have been utilizing pause, rewind and mute more. I\u2019m confident I could avoid the pitfalls and make it work.",
                    "date": "2023-12-17",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18kako4"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "18qs46r",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kewy50f",
                "author": "koolaid-girl-40",
                "body": "It's the double standard that's the issue. If media depicted men the exact same way they depicted women, then it wouldn't be an issue.\n\nIn societies shaped by patriarchy, a man's value is tied to his degree of power and resource status, while a woman's value is tied to her body. Whether it be how sexually appealing her body is to men in general (objectification), how much she reserves her body for specific men (purity culture), or  her ability to bear and raise children (motherhood obligation), her value is in some way tied to her body...something that she didn't decide to be born into. It can be very disheartening to feel like no matter how hard you work to get good at a particular skill or contribute to society in other ways, the world seems to care more about your body or what you do with your body.\n\nBoth men and women are fighting against the reduction of their value to things that don't bring them true fulfillment, and for both that often means pushing back against double standards. And for women, the double standard involves an intense focus on their bodies that it often unwanted. So if a video game or movie is gonna insist on exposing a woman's body to titillate viewers, then expose men's bodies to the same extent. Or don't make sexual appeal the focus of either gender's characters or costume design. it's not that hard and does a lot to reassure women that their bodies aren't the most interesting thing about them.",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "18qs46r"
            },
            {
                "id": "kex1ryh",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "> It can be very disheartening to feel like no matter how hard you work to get good at a particular skill or contribute to society in other ways, the world seems to care more about your body or what you do with your body\n\nIts funny, because I almost feel the opposite where only being valued on what you can provide is not as good as being valued for something inherent like your body.  But as another commenter pointed out, maybe if my shoes were switched where the other was harder to be valued for, that would bug me more.  Also, you kind of touch on that\n\n> Both men and women are fighting against the reduction of their value to things that don't bring them true fulfillment, and for both that often means pushing back against double standards.\n\nSo, !delta\n\n> If media depicted men the exact same way they depicted women, then it wouldn't be an issue.\n\nIf thats all that is needed, I wish media just depicted men the same way haha.",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "kewy50f"
            },
            {
                "id": "kex1vdx",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/koolaid-girl-40 ([23\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/koolaid-girl-40)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kex1ryh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewtfma",
                    "author": "AnAlpacaIsJudgingYou",
                    "body": "Think about if the only thing society values about you was your sex appeal. Bot your personality, your skill, your achievements.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewvk8d",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I guess I have a hard time imagining that because I don't see how society would not value my skill or achievements.  If I did something great how would society not value that?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "kewtfma"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewu9h4",
                    "author": "Kazthespooky",
                    "body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.\n\nDo you believe you would be upset if instead of your next pay raise, you were told you are pretty? Or if you were praised for your hard work with the comment, \"thank god OP was here with their pretty mouth\". Or if you were excluded from things because you would distract others. Or if we told your lifes story and all it said was, \"women enjoyed your pretty mouth\"\n\nYou aren't a human with thoughts, feelings or preferences when you are objectified. You are nothing except what others want to do with you.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewuwyc",
                    "author": "Dramatic_Reality_531",
                    "body": "How does wearing makeup, high heels, and \u201csexy\u201d clothes fit into wanting to not be objectified? If women didn\u2019t want to be objectified, shouldn\u2019t they, as a whole, avoid these things that cause objectification?\n\nOr is it a \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d situation where good ideals don\u2019t matter and only who actually has the babies?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -11,
                    "parent_id": "kewu9h4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewub75",
                    "author": "kikistiel",
                    "body": ">Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nIt isn't about how the men feel. It's about how the women feel. They feel like men don't respect them. No amount of \"data\" about how men feel about women make how it makes women feel any less valid. If they say they don't like it, that doesn't need men's input as to why.\n\n>Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\nBecause we aren't \"creatures\" dude. That's literally the whole point. Just yesterday on this very subreddit I saw someone say they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\" That is exactly what objectification we are talking about. You don't get \"new\" and \"used\" women like from Amazon. As you said, women are people with brains. No one likes to have their entire complex lives reduced to a car sale.\n\n>Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\nWomen don't like it. If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it. I explained above why it hurts and why it makes me feel bad. A reasonable adult would say \"Oh, I see -- I won't do that anymore then.\" Instead of argue about why they should be allowed to do it anyways. Just don't do it.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 51,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewxug1",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it\n\nI agree as a first measure to the issue the easiest thing to do is for men to stop doing the thing that makes women not feel good.  But for the long term, wouldn't it make more sense for women to try and see that things aren't as bad as they think?  Like, if my sneezing makes you feel like you're being hit, the first thing I would do is stop sneezing.  But, I would try to show you that I'm not hitting you.\n\n> Because we aren't \"creatures\" dude. \n\nWe are all creatures, aren't we?  Maybe I have a different idea of what a creature is, because I think a creature is a lot more than a car.\n\n> they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\"\n\nHmmm being compared to car is odd, I can almost see how that is hurtful.  But, it doesn't seem that bad to me.  Could you explain more on this?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -18,
                    "parent_id": "kewub75"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewv0qb",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "I assure you, not every man 'courts women'. Not every man is 'sensitive to her feelings'. A great many men do not do these things.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 23,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewy0bu",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sure, but those men aren't going to be successful with women, are they?\n\nOr are you saying more men are failing at this due to objectification?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "kewv0qb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewvx3i",
                    "author": "whatwhowherehow",
                    "body": "A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans. This isn\u2019t a speculation, you can scrutinize anything from art and literature to legislation and policy and it would lead you to that conclusion. It\u2019s also important to interrogate your viewpoint by expanding how women are treated globally not only how you perceive women to be treated in your immediate vicinity. You have entire countries where women are second class (Afghanistan and Iran). Objectification may seem harmless in how you\u2019ve described it but it\u2019s a symptom of a greater problem. When you divorce someone from their full humanity and place so much value on their appearance you rob them of dignity. When so much emphasis is places on a woman\u2019s appearance, it means that she has less value if she ages, if she is disabled, if she isn\u2019t beautiful. Objectification in its essence is the opposite of humanization. Women are owed the dignity of their humanity just as equally as men do.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 20,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex0och",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans\n\nTrue.  Objectification as a symptom of a greater problem, that could also be true.  But then, is objectification really the problem?  Or is the bigger issue of women not being seen as equals?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kewvx3i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewyjwa",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "> I don't understand why they feel so bad about it. \n\nWhoppee for you. Who cares?\n\nDo you think your feelings are some kind of universal arbiter of truth?\n\nWhy are some men so desperate to both make women uncomfortable and afraid and then try to shame them for it?\n\nhttps://www.thisamericanlife.org/603/transcript",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex041i",
                    "author": "fifiinsidethebed",
                    "body": "> No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nAlthough your experience isn't invalid it also doesn't erase the experiences of many women sharing their struggles to be seen as a human by the men they meet.\n\n> If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll.\n\nIf only that was easy as you presented. The men who see women as sex dolls are frequently exposed by women because they won't just buy a sex doll and leave them alone. You seem to forget the part where they also desire to control and own these women. These men are the stalkers, the persistent ex, the incels the women are complaining about. They have an obsession that sadly a simple doll cannot fulfill. \n\n\n> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.\n\nPeople think objectification is just a word that twitter use here and there to sound smart and granted sometimes they use it for the wrong situation but it's still a serious issue. The way some men are taught to view women can lead to more dangerous consequences than women being an attention grabber in media. It goes from having your body being a public show when you just want to cross the street to being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him. Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing). Objectification is bad because it steals the agency that the woman has over her body to make everyone else her judge and sometimes her punisher. \n\n\n> Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature\n\n\nHopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\". Sexual objectification is the center, it's the start that can lead to grievance against women and as we all know can lead to some of the darkest crimes (abuse, murder, rape, sex trafficking, etc..)",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex4e0p",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Hopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\"\n\nYes, I just don't see how safety and objectification go together yet.\n\n> ...being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him.\n\nIsn't that type of obsession usually far beyond just wanting the body?\n\n> Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing).\n\nThat sounds terrible, what is honory killing?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "kex041i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex1jjo",
                    "author": "No_Scarcity8249",
                    "body": "Says a dude. The first issue here is that you don\u2019t get to be in on the debate. Why do you even get to have an opinion on what\u2019s good for someone else\u2019s let alone hag the people on the planet? You aren\u2019t the victim. It doesn\u2019t affect you negatively.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex4ocp",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": " I would assume women would rather me empathize with them on this issue rather than have no opinion.  I guess if I see more negativity in the world that could be a downside, but its just something I've heard of from women so its something I would like to be more aware of.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kex1jjo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex5aoj",
                    "author": "bfduinxdjnkydd",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t feel good to be seen as a \u201csexy creature\u201d because I\u2019m not a creature and I probably don\u2019t want to fuck you. I\u2019m a human being and it doesn\u2019t mean anything to me if I\u2019m sexy or not. I know you don\u2019t mean anything by your use of the word \u201ccreature\u201d here, but here\u2019s a thought exercise: can you think of a situation where you would describe another man as a \u201ccreature\u201d, in a positive way where you view him as an equal?\n\nIt\u2019s not flattering to be seen as sexy by a random man. If anything it just makes me feel wary of them, because I have to second guess everything they say or do towards me, because I can\u2019t be sure if it\u2019s genuine or they\u2019re just trying to fuck me. It causes me anxiety, because I have to be very careful in how I interact with them in this situation, because I don\u2019t want to inadvertently give them the impression that I\u2019m interested by being too \u201cnice\u201d or too polite. \n\nThats why objectification feels bad, to me.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex5rbh",
                    "author": "Enni2S",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is that with your opening post, you are kind of already showing what the issue is. You are doing a hell of a lot of objectification when describing women purely in terms of their value to men. It's not just about women being seen purely as sex objects (though that is a large part of it), but being seen as objects *in general*. \n\nYou talk about how guys might initially be only interested in looks, but later they'll see personality etc. This is still about a woman's value to men, instead of about women as people. Your whole post is about what makes a woman attractive to you and other men, because that's where her 'value' is in this argument, and it becomes their only value. Sexualisation of men simply doesn't work the same way (by and large). I have no problem with sexualisation, but I do with objectification. It is not the same thing. \n\nImagine if you worked hard, wrote a book, ran 20 miles for charity etc, but *all* that mattered to people was how attractive you were to them. That's how men talk about women, that's how women are treated in society. It sucks.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kexw88i",
                    "author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
                    "body": ">Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nYou said that because you never see one, and that's doesn't mean it's don't exist.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kexwyit",
                    "author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
                    "body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.\n\nYou don't have problems with it doesn't mean other will feel the same way as you. The idea of 'I don't have problems with it, why do they have to overreacting?' Is sounds really self-centred to use your feelings as standards.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kexw88i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kexzz63",
                    "author": "1Goldlady2",
                    "body": "You haven't met a guy I actually met who told me his ideal sexual preference would be if he didn't have to deal with women at all.  His ideal preference, he said, would just be a wall of vaginas  nailed to a wall that he could use as he pleased.  Some men objectify women to a point that no human being should or would be willing to tolerate.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "key2hxm",
                    "author": "666throwawaytrash",
                    "body": "I could step toe to toe with the men at my company because they were my mentors and I was still demeaned for being a woman. They fetishized me when I just wanted respect. I live as a recluse to avoid interacting with guys in general because I've gone through child abuse and the cycle continues.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kezf1i4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm sorry to hear that.  Do you think there is anything men could do to make up for that bad experience in your life?  Being pushed out of society because of the opposite gender sounds rough.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "key2hxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "keycmv0",
                    "author": "luuls_",
                    "body": "Start by reading some radical feminism. Not because they\u2019re right but because it will get you a free pass onto women\u2019s heads and the reason why we experience things so differently. \n\nAlso, you\u2019re not considering how men can *literally* buy their way into women\u2019s bodies, i.e., prostitution (sometimes involving poor or underage women), pornography, rape culture, marital rape, arranged marriages, etc etc",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "keyjrnf",
                    "author": "ConsultJimMoriarty",
                    "body": "Hello, have your met the incel community?",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kezgwmt",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Technically I'm an incel, but I try to avoid the community as it doesn't seem like a great environment.  From what I hear though they are hostile towards women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "keyjrnf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "keyxji5",
                    "author": "sadopossum",
                    "body": "I want to kill myself every day because I don't look perfect so idk, can't be that great.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kezeob5",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm sorry to hear that.  As I mentioned in my post, I agree that since it causes suffering, it is bad in that sense, regardless of anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "keyxji5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kf2xszk",
                    "author": "schwenomorph",
                    "body": "Would you enjoy being objectified by horns men who have no self control?",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kf5qqmp",
                    "author": "IAteTheWholeBanana",
                    "body": "> Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nI don't know if there are studies on this, probably, but I've never looked. I was 12 the first time and adult man made an aggressively sexual comment at me. Just about every woman I know has a similar experience. I was in middle school when men started commenting on my body. \n\nIt's not about data, its feelings. being treating like that doesn't feel good.",
                    "date": "2023-12-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kf5vit8",
                    "author": "pfundie",
                    "body": ">Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.\n\nRight, but they don't actually care about the brain or feelings. They just have to deal with them to get sex.\n\n>They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).\n\nExactly the problem here. You see this as \"normal\" and unobjectionable, but what you're describing is a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him by pretending that he cares about who she is as a person. You're *not* describing a man who actually sees value and importance in that woman beyond her body. He's a bad person, who uses other people for his own selfish and hedonistic ends.\n\n>But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nYes, that is the problem. They are choosing to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions, whose brains and opinions they don't consider important or valuable except as something to leverage for sex. \n\n>I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.\n\nYou laugh at it because otherwise you would have to think about it, and it's horrible. You don't see being seen as a hunk of muscles as a bad thing because that is held up as a masculine ideal and men are conditioned into being insecure about being seen as anything else. \n\n>So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\nI am a man, and I have an issue with both this as well as the way society generally sees men. They're the same thing, when you get down to it; a bunch of people treating each other like absolute shit for no better reason than that someone older than them told them to. Women want to be valued for their minds and their achievements in the only way that men are seen as valuable. Men want to be able to be seen as desirable and attractive in the way that is generally forced upon women as their dominant means of being valued, whether they want it or not. Thus, men fight a constant, unnecessary battle against a gaping void of masculine insecurity, and women never feel like their minds are seen as valuable or important. We don't actually have to accept this; we are *choosing* to hurt ourselves like this by maintaining these standards.\n\nThis is a difficult realization to make, but we (men) don't actually have to do the whole objectification thing. We are, in ways we don't really think about, constantly pushed towards it. We are even made to feel insecure about considering other qualities than physical attraction in our female partners; talking about women's bodies makes us feel masculine, like we're fitting in, and when we don't participate, we get accused of basically being a failure of a man in some capacity. A whole lot of men have lost interest in a woman after her appearance was disparaged by his friends, and that directly implies that a lot of this stuff *isn't* natural, but is instead something that we have collectively made up to hurt ourselves with. Similarly, men feel insecure about rejecting sex with a woman if she fits within feminine beauty standards, to the point that they feel like they have to justify not doing it.\n\nWe don't have to see women that way. I don't. It's a lot better; I'm actually less anxious because I can seriously be friends or acquaintances with a woman without feeling that constant pressure. I can see that it makes them a lot more comfortable around me as well, because they don't feel like they are either being rejected or pursued when they talk to me. The secret is that men largely objectify women because they are taught that a man who doesn't is failing at being a man, and will be seen as less by his peers.",
                    "date": "2023-12-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "18qs46r",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kexupa5",
                "author": "LumpyExercise5079",
                "body": ">Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nNot arguing that all men do, or even most. But enough men do that it poses a problem, and leads to assault. There was a study conducted comparing two groups: one exposed to sexualized portrayals of women, one not. Data about the ones exposed:\n\n>16.00% of men expressed at least modest agreement to the statement, \"A woman who is stuck up and thinks she is too good to talk to guys on the street deserves to be taught a lesson.\"  \n>  \n>9.60% agreed with \"Sometimes the only way a man can get a cold woman turned on is to use force\"  \n>  \n>52.40% agreed with \"When women go around braless or wearing short skirts and tight tops, they are just asking for trouble.\"\n\nExposure to porn made men 90% more likely to agree, reality TV made them 15% more likely. \n\nAnd agreeing meant an 87% increased likelihood of violence. \n\nThe data is clear. Sexualized media leads to vastly increased likelihoods of sexual assault, including but not limited to rape. \n\n([https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf)) -- it's peer reviewed",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 10,
                "parent_id": "18qs46r"
            },
            {
                "id": "key84ik",
                "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                "body": "Excellent study!  I got a little lost trying to understand what they did with the technical issue in obtaining responses, and why they kept referring to it as \"theoretical\" models, but I'll trust the conclusions drawn.  !delta , objectification of women leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "kexupa5"
            },
            {
                "id": "key87z0",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/LumpyExercise5079 ([2\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/LumpyExercise5079)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-25",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "key84ik"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewtfma",
                    "author": "AnAlpacaIsJudgingYou",
                    "body": "Think about if the only thing society values about you was your sex appeal. Bot your personality, your skill, your achievements.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewvk8d",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I guess I have a hard time imagining that because I don't see how society would not value my skill or achievements.  If I did something great how would society not value that?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "kewtfma"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewu9h4",
                    "author": "Kazthespooky",
                    "body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.\n\nDo you believe you would be upset if instead of your next pay raise, you were told you are pretty? Or if you were praised for your hard work with the comment, \"thank god OP was here with their pretty mouth\". Or if you were excluded from things because you would distract others. Or if we told your lifes story and all it said was, \"women enjoyed your pretty mouth\"\n\nYou aren't a human with thoughts, feelings or preferences when you are objectified. You are nothing except what others want to do with you.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewuwyc",
                    "author": "Dramatic_Reality_531",
                    "body": "How does wearing makeup, high heels, and \u201csexy\u201d clothes fit into wanting to not be objectified? If women didn\u2019t want to be objectified, shouldn\u2019t they, as a whole, avoid these things that cause objectification?\n\nOr is it a \u201csurvival of the fittest\u201d situation where good ideals don\u2019t matter and only who actually has the babies?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -11,
                    "parent_id": "kewu9h4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewub75",
                    "author": "kikistiel",
                    "body": ">Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nIt isn't about how the men feel. It's about how the women feel. They feel like men don't respect them. No amount of \"data\" about how men feel about women make how it makes women feel any less valid. If they say they don't like it, that doesn't need men's input as to why.\n\n>Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature. Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\nBecause we aren't \"creatures\" dude. That's literally the whole point. Just yesterday on this very subreddit I saw someone say they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\" That is exactly what objectification we are talking about. You don't get \"new\" and \"used\" women like from Amazon. As you said, women are people with brains. No one likes to have their entire complex lives reduced to a car sale.\n\n>Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\nWomen don't like it. If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it. I explained above why it hurts and why it makes me feel bad. A reasonable adult would say \"Oh, I see -- I won't do that anymore then.\" Instead of argue about why they should be allowed to do it anyways. Just don't do it.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 51,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewxug1",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> If someone does something to someone else and they say hey I don't like that, it makes me feel like shit, please stop -- just stop doing it\n\nI agree as a first measure to the issue the easiest thing to do is for men to stop doing the thing that makes women not feel good.  But for the long term, wouldn't it make more sense for women to try and see that things aren't as bad as they think?  Like, if my sneezing makes you feel like you're being hit, the first thing I would do is stop sneezing.  But, I would try to show you that I'm not hitting you.\n\n> Because we aren't \"creatures\" dude. \n\nWe are all creatures, aren't we?  Maybe I have a different idea of what a creature is, because I think a creature is a lot more than a car.\n\n> they don't want to sleep with women that aren't virgins because \"you would rather have a new car than a used one, right?\"\n\nHmmm being compared to car is odd, I can almost see how that is hurtful.  But, it doesn't seem that bad to me.  Could you explain more on this?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -18,
                    "parent_id": "kewub75"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewv0qb",
                    "author": "Hellioning",
                    "body": "I assure you, not every man 'courts women'. Not every man is 'sensitive to her feelings'. A great many men do not do these things.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 23,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewy0bu",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Sure, but those men aren't going to be successful with women, are they?\n\nOr are you saying more men are failing at this due to objectification?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "kewv0qb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewvx3i",
                    "author": "whatwhowherehow",
                    "body": "A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans. This isn\u2019t a speculation, you can scrutinize anything from art and literature to legislation and policy and it would lead you to that conclusion. It\u2019s also important to interrogate your viewpoint by expanding how women are treated globally not only how you perceive women to be treated in your immediate vicinity. You have entire countries where women are second class (Afghanistan and Iran). Objectification may seem harmless in how you\u2019ve described it but it\u2019s a symptom of a greater problem. When you divorce someone from their full humanity and place so much value on their appearance you rob them of dignity. When so much emphasis is places on a woman\u2019s appearance, it means that she has less value if she ages, if she is disabled, if she isn\u2019t beautiful. Objectification in its essence is the opposite of humanization. Women are owed the dignity of their humanity just as equally as men do.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 20,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex0och",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> A lot of men see women as a lesser class of humans\n\nTrue.  Objectification as a symptom of a greater problem, that could also be true.  But then, is objectification really the problem?  Or is the bigger issue of women not being seen as equals?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kewvx3i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kewyjwa",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "> I don't understand why they feel so bad about it. \n\nWhoppee for you. Who cares?\n\nDo you think your feelings are some kind of universal arbiter of truth?\n\nWhy are some men so desperate to both make women uncomfortable and afraid and then try to shame them for it?\n\nhttps://www.thisamericanlife.org/603/transcript",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex041i",
                    "author": "fifiinsidethebed",
                    "body": "> No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nAlthough your experience isn't invalid it also doesn't erase the experiences of many women sharing their struggles to be seen as a human by the men they meet.\n\n> If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that. Or buy a sex doll.\n\nIf only that was easy as you presented. The men who see women as sex dolls are frequently exposed by women because they won't just buy a sex doll and leave them alone. You seem to forget the part where they also desire to control and own these women. These men are the stalkers, the persistent ex, the incels the women are complaining about. They have an obsession that sadly a simple doll cannot fulfill. \n\n\n> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.\n\nPeople think objectification is just a word that twitter use here and there to sound smart and granted sometimes they use it for the wrong situation but it's still a serious issue. The way some men are taught to view women can lead to more dangerous consequences than women being an attention grabber in media. It goes from having your body being a public show when you just want to cross the street to being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him. Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing). Objectification is bad because it steals the agency that the woman has over her body to make everyone else her judge and sometimes her punisher. \n\n\n> Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature\n\n\nHopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\". Sexual objectification is the center, it's the start that can lead to grievance against women and as we all know can lead to some of the darkest crimes (abuse, murder, rape, sex trafficking, etc..)",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex4e0p",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "> Hopefully, you will understand that the safety and well-being of women is a priority over being perceived as \"sexy creature\"\n\nYes, I just don't see how safety and objectification go together yet.\n\n> ...being murdered because some guy thought that you belong to him.\n\nIsn't that type of obsession usually far beyond just wanting the body?\n\n> Hell, even your family can think they have ownership over your body (honory killing).\n\nThat sounds terrible, what is honory killing?",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "kex041i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex1jjo",
                    "author": "No_Scarcity8249",
                    "body": "Says a dude. The first issue here is that you don\u2019t get to be in on the debate. Why do you even get to have an opinion on what\u2019s good for someone else\u2019s let alone hag the people on the planet? You aren\u2019t the victim. It doesn\u2019t affect you negatively.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex4ocp",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": " I would assume women would rather me empathize with them on this issue rather than have no opinion.  I guess if I see more negativity in the world that could be a downside, but its just something I've heard of from women so its something I would like to be more aware of.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kex1jjo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex5aoj",
                    "author": "bfduinxdjnkydd",
                    "body": "It doesn\u2019t feel good to be seen as a \u201csexy creature\u201d because I\u2019m not a creature and I probably don\u2019t want to fuck you. I\u2019m a human being and it doesn\u2019t mean anything to me if I\u2019m sexy or not. I know you don\u2019t mean anything by your use of the word \u201ccreature\u201d here, but here\u2019s a thought exercise: can you think of a situation where you would describe another man as a \u201ccreature\u201d, in a positive way where you view him as an equal?\n\nIt\u2019s not flattering to be seen as sexy by a random man. If anything it just makes me feel wary of them, because I have to second guess everything they say or do towards me, because I can\u2019t be sure if it\u2019s genuine or they\u2019re just trying to fuck me. It causes me anxiety, because I have to be very careful in how I interact with them in this situation, because I don\u2019t want to inadvertently give them the impression that I\u2019m interested by being too \u201cnice\u201d or too polite. \n\nThats why objectification feels bad, to me.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kex5rbh",
                    "author": "Enni2S",
                    "body": "The interesting thing is that with your opening post, you are kind of already showing what the issue is. You are doing a hell of a lot of objectification when describing women purely in terms of their value to men. It's not just about women being seen purely as sex objects (though that is a large part of it), but being seen as objects *in general*. \n\nYou talk about how guys might initially be only interested in looks, but later they'll see personality etc. This is still about a woman's value to men, instead of about women as people. Your whole post is about what makes a woman attractive to you and other men, because that's where her 'value' is in this argument, and it becomes their only value. Sexualisation of men simply doesn't work the same way (by and large). I have no problem with sexualisation, but I do with objectification. It is not the same thing. \n\nImagine if you worked hard, wrote a book, ran 20 miles for charity etc, but *all* that mattered to people was how attractive you were to them. That's how men talk about women, that's how women are treated in society. It sucks.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kexw88i",
                    "author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
                    "body": ">Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality. No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"\n\nYou said that because you never see one, and that's doesn't mean it's don't exist.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kexwyit",
                    "author": "Flat_Satisfaction918",
                    "body": "> I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.\n\nYou don't have problems with it doesn't mean other will feel the same way as you. The idea of 'I don't have problems with it, why do they have to overreacting?' Is sounds really self-centred to use your feelings as standards.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kexw88i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kexzz63",
                    "author": "1Goldlady2",
                    "body": "You haven't met a guy I actually met who told me his ideal sexual preference would be if he didn't have to deal with women at all.  His ideal preference, he said, would just be a wall of vaginas  nailed to a wall that he could use as he pleased.  Some men objectify women to a point that no human being should or would be willing to tolerate.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "key2hxm",
                    "author": "666throwawaytrash",
                    "body": "I could step toe to toe with the men at my company because they were my mentors and I was still demeaned for being a woman. They fetishized me when I just wanted respect. I live as a recluse to avoid interacting with guys in general because I've gone through child abuse and the cycle continues.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kezf1i4",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm sorry to hear that.  Do you think there is anything men could do to make up for that bad experience in your life?  Being pushed out of society because of the opposite gender sounds rough.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "key2hxm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "keycmv0",
                    "author": "luuls_",
                    "body": "Start by reading some radical feminism. Not because they\u2019re right but because it will get you a free pass onto women\u2019s heads and the reason why we experience things so differently. \n\nAlso, you\u2019re not considering how men can *literally* buy their way into women\u2019s bodies, i.e., prostitution (sometimes involving poor or underage women), pornography, rape culture, marital rape, arranged marriages, etc etc",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "keyjrnf",
                    "author": "ConsultJimMoriarty",
                    "body": "Hello, have your met the incel community?",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kezgwmt",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "Technically I'm an incel, but I try to avoid the community as it doesn't seem like a great environment.  From what I hear though they are hostile towards women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "keyjrnf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "keyxji5",
                    "author": "sadopossum",
                    "body": "I want to kill myself every day because I don't look perfect so idk, can't be that great.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kezeob5",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I'm sorry to hear that.  As I mentioned in my post, I agree that since it causes suffering, it is bad in that sense, regardless of anything else.",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "keyxji5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kf2xszk",
                    "author": "schwenomorph",
                    "body": "Would you enjoy being objectified by horns men who have no self control?",
                    "date": "2023-12-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kf5qqmp",
                    "author": "IAteTheWholeBanana",
                    "body": "> Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\nI don't know if there are studies on this, probably, but I've never looked. I was 12 the first time and adult man made an aggressively sexual comment at me. Just about every woman I know has a similar experience. I was in middle school when men started commenting on my body. \n\nIt's not about data, its feelings. being treating like that doesn't feel good.",
                    "date": "2023-12-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18qs46r",
                    "author": "RedditExplorer89",
                    "body": "I hear this in discourse when women wear sexy clothing in movies or video games: that it objectifies women (and I assume the speaker thinks this is a bad thing).  This is also usually accompanied with complaints that women are being seen as \"just\" sex objects, and that their other human qualities are being diminished.  One women I've met said, \"I want to be seen as more than a bag of warm meat.\"\n\nOn a base level, I do think its bad if someone feels bad, and its clear women feel bad about objectification.  In that sense, I'd agree objectification is bad.  However, I think these perceptions of their image are distortions, and I don't understand *why* they feel so bad about it.  I'll explain the reasoning why I have this view:\n\n1.) Perceptions of objectification are distortions of reality.  No guy I've ever met sees women as \"walking vaginas\" or \"bags of warm meat.\"  Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.  They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).  If they really just wanted warm bags of meat they could much more easily buy meat from the butcher, heat it up in the oven, and play around with that.  Or buy a sex doll.  But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nIn modern media, it may be true that a women's body parts might be the most attractive thing *initially for a guy*, but its really more of an attention grabber.  Once the movie/game starts, the personality of woman comes through.  For example: Lara Croft in Tomb Raider (a character model who is heavily sexualized) had her personality and story changed part way through, and fans of the franchise were upset over it.\n\n2.)  I don't get why women feel bad about objectification.  If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me.  Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it.  I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.  I also get the impression a lot of men would be okay with it too, based on the men I've met in my life.  So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\n**What would change my view**\n\nI'd like to better understand why women feel bad about objectification, and learn if there is truth to their perceptions of their image regarding it.\n\n* Data/studies showing that men only see women as walking bags of meat.\n\n* Tell me why it doesn't feel good to be seen as a sexy creature.  Is this just because men have a higher sex drive?\n\n* Maybe something else could change my view, such as pointing out a flaw in my reasoning.  This was just what I could think of for this post.\n\n**Deltas**\n\n* Men complain about being expected to be the breadwinner, which could point to just either human not understanding the feeling of being a situation they haven't experienced (ie: haven't experienced objectification so I don't know why it would feel bad)\n\n* If people claim your achievements are due to your looks that would be upsetting.\n\n* Historically, women had to put men as the face of their achievement, and to do that had to sleep with the man.  This objectification is bad, because they don't get acknowledgement for their achievement and might sleep with someone they otherwise would not want to.\n\n* \"Being compared to things you buy and own as a woman feels shitty because this is how some men still see us -- as property.\"  - and objectification can lead to being compared to things you buy.\n\n* Human qualities being diminished could be dangerous and lead to doing inhumane things to those people.\n\n* Honor killings, where women are killed due to bringing shame on the family for being to sexual.\n\n* There are men who treat women poorly with objectification and can be harmful, especially for younger women who might not know what a good relationship looks like.\n\n* [Study](https://democracy.bristol.gov.uk/documents/s73942/Appendix%206%20-%20Journal%20Article.pdf) shows that seeing women as sexual objects leads to more sexual assault of women.",
                    "date": "2023-12-25",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Objectification of women isn't as bad as they make it out to be",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18qs46r/cmv_objectification_of_women_isnt_as_bad_as_they/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kf5vit8",
                    "author": "pfundie",
                    "body": ">Yeah, sex might be the most attractive thing about a women for some guys, but even the guys trying to constantly get laid understand that they are dealing with a human being who has a brain and feelings.\n\nRight, but they don't actually care about the brain or feelings. They just have to deal with them to get sex.\n\n>They court women, trying to appeal with intelligent conversation or being sensitive to her feelings (guys that don't do this quickly learn being a douche doesn't get you dates).\n\nExactly the problem here. You see this as \"normal\" and unobjectionable, but what you're describing is a man manipulating a woman into having sex with him by pretending that he cares about who she is as a person. You're *not* describing a man who actually sees value and importance in that woman beyond her body. He's a bad person, who uses other people for his own selfish and hedonistic ends.\n\n>But men consistently choose to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions.\n\nYes, that is the problem. They are choosing to go after living, breathing women who have brains and opinions, whose brains and opinions they don't consider important or valuable except as something to leverage for sex. \n\n>I don't get why women feel bad about objectification. If men were constantly showed as sex objects I don't think it would bother me. Heck, there are even jokes that \"men are dumb,\" or \"men have 0 emotional IQ\" and I just laugh at it. I feel like if I was seen as just a hunk of muscles that would be kinda awesome if anything.\n\nYou laugh at it because otherwise you would have to think about it, and it's horrible. You don't see being seen as a hunk of muscles as a bad thing because that is held up as a masculine ideal and men are conditioned into being insecure about being seen as anything else. \n\n>So, I don't understand why it seems only women have an issue with this.\n\nI am a man, and I have an issue with both this as well as the way society generally sees men. They're the same thing, when you get down to it; a bunch of people treating each other like absolute shit for no better reason than that someone older than them told them to. Women want to be valued for their minds and their achievements in the only way that men are seen as valuable. Men want to be able to be seen as desirable and attractive in the way that is generally forced upon women as their dominant means of being valued, whether they want it or not. Thus, men fight a constant, unnecessary battle against a gaping void of masculine insecurity, and women never feel like their minds are seen as valuable or important. We don't actually have to accept this; we are *choosing* to hurt ourselves like this by maintaining these standards.\n\nThis is a difficult realization to make, but we (men) don't actually have to do the whole objectification thing. We are, in ways we don't really think about, constantly pushed towards it. We are even made to feel insecure about considering other qualities than physical attraction in our female partners; talking about women's bodies makes us feel masculine, like we're fitting in, and when we don't participate, we get accused of basically being a failure of a man in some capacity. A whole lot of men have lost interest in a woman after her appearance was disparaged by his friends, and that directly implies that a lot of this stuff *isn't* natural, but is instead something that we have collectively made up to hurt ourselves with. Similarly, men feel insecure about rejecting sex with a woman if she fits within feminine beauty standards, to the point that they feel like they have to justify not doing it.\n\nWe don't have to see women that way. I don't. It's a lot better; I'm actually less anxious because I can seriously be friends or acquaintances with a woman without feeling that constant pressure. I can see that it makes them a lot more comfortable around me as well, because they don't feel like they are either being rejected or pursued when they talk to me. The secret is that men largely objectify women because they are taught that a man who doesn't is failing at being a man, and will be seen as less by his peers.",
                    "date": "2023-12-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18qs46r"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "18uriv3",
                "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                "date": "2023-12-30",
                "score": 125,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kfmckjn",
                "author": "lily_34",
                "body": "It's not a fool-proof concept, but I think it can be helpful. I personally subscribe to the idea that trying to stop progress is futile - but if you don't like where it's going, you can try to steer it.\n\nLet's say I don't like some modern tendency. To illustrate, let's use neoliberal globalization. There are two possible approaches to that.\n\nFirst is the reactionary one: try to stop it or turn back the clock. Reassert national authority, weaken international organizations, etc. Usually this reactionary approach will be accompanies by a rise in fascism - but even if they somehow managed to avoid that, I would still avoid. Simply because I don't think globalization CAN be stopped. It is a direct result of new technologies breaking down barriers. These barriers won't be unbroken. The technologies will exist and improve.\n\nThen there are the progressive approaches. You don't fight globalization, but try to adjust course. There could, of course, be multiple possible directions. For example, instead of freedom of trade and capital, focus on freedom of people to move. Or on democratizing the global regulatory bodies like the WTO. Or, capitalize of globalization to conquer the world and build an empire.\n\nNow, which of the progressive approaches are right or wrong is always a question that should be asked. But I think, generally, the reactionary ones are at beast pointless - and usually worse.",
                "date": "2023-12-30",
                "score": 24,
                "parent_id": "18uriv3"
            },
            {
                "id": "kfmvz9c",
                "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                "body": "I think some of the above examples would suggest that certain things - things often once deemed \"progress\" by their supporters, though we definitely wouldn't call them progress today - really can be stopped from developing any further. The form of politics practised in the USSR post-Revolution and in China under Mao has largely died out after emerging in the early to mid twentieth century. Eugenics as a whole concept has been completely beyond the pale in the Western world post-1945 after being semi-popular in intellectual circles from the late 1800s until that point.\n\nIt's certainly true in the broadest of senses that 'progress' or just change in general cannot be avoided - the world will not stay the same forever - but from these examples it would seem that on some issues, after flirting with new ideas it is actually possible to return to something closer to our old baseline. Today's economic system is probably closer to that which existed prior to the Russian Revolution than it is to a state socialist one, and our views on the morality of controlling the gene pool are probably closer to the views of people in the mid-1800s than they are to the views of eugenicists.\n\nI will however say !delta on the point of reactionary responses to certain policies. You have raised a good point of the problems with a reactionary response being not just scepticism of progress but taking quite extreme measures to try and stop it, and whilst I disagree to an extent on the inevitability of progress I can see that there is some use in drawing comparisons between reactionary responses to change today and similar responses in the past which led to grim consequences.",
                "date": "2023-12-30",
                "score": 8,
                "parent_id": "kfmckjn"
            },
            {
                "id": "kfmw3lk",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lily_34 ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lily_34)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2023-12-30",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kfmvz9c"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfm7z4b",
                    "author": "Fe-dom",
                    "body": "I agree, the question is also the wrong side of history \u201cat what point.\u201d At first at one point in history all those people appeared to be winning and there is also no guarantee that the balance of power might shift back towards the other side on any of these things. Then things will be reversed and everyone who was on the wrong side of history will then be on the right side of history and vice versa.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfm9amw",
                    "author": "MrGraeme",
                    "body": "The \"right/wrong side of history\" argument is meant to encourage people to consider the long-term implications of the policies that they support - it's not meant to say that any individual policy is good simply because it's progressive.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 76,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfma4mz",
                    "author": "Cerael",
                    "body": "I see it used as a way to vilify and shame the person, generally around polarizing topics.  It just seems like tribalism to me.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "kfm9amw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfm9bjf",
                    "author": "Patient-Currency7524",
                    "body": "This is weird, because you\u2019re literally making the \u201cright/wrong side of history\u201d argument to bolster your true claim, which is that being progressive isn\u2019t always good. \n\nThe \u201cright/wrong side of history argument\u201d is specifically brought up to illustrate the point that a lot of evils were committed by people who thought they were in the right. \n\nYou should rename this \u201ccmv: change isn\u2019t always good, and basically nobody thinks of themselves as evil\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmetx1",
                    "author": "page0rz",
                    "body": ">It seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones\n\nWhy is this necessary? The issue of posterity is not all of it, the argument about being in the right or wrong was (and is) happening in the present. As presented, it's like the entire western world was united in imperialism, and all for supposedly \"progressive\" reasons, and then centuries later we suddenly realized it was wrong. No. People at the time, in the west and definitely outside of the west, were saying it was bad and evil, and laying out compelling arguments for that. We don't flop a coin to decide our moral positions and then say, \"only god can judge.\" This is very, \"white people and liberliam are good because they figured out slavery was bad\" energy, which is a common angle people take for arguments around that, all while ignoring that slaves knew it was bad the entire time it was going on",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmgnq5",
                    "author": "teaguechrystie",
                    "body": "Some people are trying to be a good ancestor.\n\nI think that's cool.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfn903r",
                    "author": "In_Pursuit_of_Fire",
                    "body": "Colonizers were trying to be a good ancestors. Hitler was trying to be a good ancestor. I\u2019m sure plenty of other terrible were trying to do right by their future progeny.\n\nOP\u2019s point that \u201cbeing on the right side of history\u201d isn\u2019t a useful metric still stands.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kfmgnq5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmljgu",
                    "author": "romantic_gestalt",
                    "body": "The whole concept of \"The right side of history\"is a fallacy because the Victor often destroys the loose and hence the society adopted the winners'POV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfp7tq3",
                    "author": "thedylanackerman",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/romantic_gestalt \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20romantic_gestalt&message=romantic_gestalt%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/-/kfmljgu/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kfmljgu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmmwbt",
                    "author": "Natural-Arugula",
                    "body": ">These and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent\n\nYeah, that's the perspective behind the concept of right/wrong side of history. You seem to acknowledge that it is a historical fact that actions will be judged as right and wrong by future society, so you concede that this framework is correct.\n\nAre you just disputing that it's actually possible to accurately predict which actions will be judged thus, so we should not attempt to?",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmqdu2",
                    "author": "Loud-Temporary9774",
                    "body": "You\u2019re on the wrong side when you\u2019re harming people. There were people calling out your examples as harmful in real time. The people who said those events were on the right side of history were using the argument incorrectly.\n\nAnytime you need to introduce \u201cthe greater good\u201d into your argument you shouldn\u2019t be using the \u201cright side of history\u201d in your argument. You always have to play the greater good card when people are being are being  materially harmed in the here and now.\n\nRight side/wrong side is helpful when it\u2019s used correctly.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfn8qt3",
                    "author": "In_Pursuit_of_Fire",
                    "body": "Plenty of people who inflicted a lot of pain ended up on \u201cthe right side of history\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kfmqdu2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmxz32",
                    "author": "zlefin_actual",
                    "body": "I find it somewhat useful; just because a lot of idiots misuse it doesn't mean one can't try to be rigorous and get some reasonable estimates out of it.\n\nI find the most useful cases to be ones with a strong and clear parallel to a relatively recent issue.  For instance the parallels between some of the trans issues and gay rights.  Or the similarities of Obergefell to Loving (the court cases).\n\nI don't think anyone is arguing that change is always good; it's that in some cases and on some topics there are fairly clear long-term trendlines if you look at the past several hundred years of ethical standards worldwide (especially in the last hundred), and that it's reasonable to expect some of those to continue.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfmzlhf",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Do you really think this is  some kind of blanket statement that all possible changes are good? \n\nBecause to me, all that phrase (in the positive direction) means is \"This change will eventually happen, because it's a good change, and people will be embarrassed that it didn't happen sooner\". It's a shortcut for that sentence. \n\nI.e. it's a moral value judgement about a specific proposed change and the desirability of speeding it along. \n\n(the negative direction is basically the contrapositive of the positive one).",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfnejsq",
                    "author": "SquidDrive",
                    "body": "Right side of history just means when this all plays out, the other side is right. Key point, abortion, conservatives celebrated the repealing of Roe v Wade, and pretended as though the logical consequences of banning such a procedure in States would not exist.\n\nWhat happened, year later, data comes out, oh wait more mothers, dead, more children, dead, more, more agonizing pregnancies due to delaying vital care due to fear of abortion law that's veingr repealed, and revoked, then reinstated practically other week.\n\nThe only thing that has come of it, is now there are more dead women due to pregnancy, more children born into unstable homes, and now live in a world where children as young as 10 can be raped, and have to travel to another state so they are not subjected to the agony of having a baby in a still developing body even ignoring all the inevitable trauma it brings.\n\nConservatives were told multiple times of the consequences, and they still pushed forward, and they had the nerve to call themselves pro life.\n\nWhen you support evil policy, because that's what these policies are, evil and lie about it's obvious consequences, you will be remembered on the wrong side of history, as a coward, as a liar, and, in this case. \n\nFrankly as fucking lunatics, who's only conception of God, is a fucking cross and gold platted assault rifle, and display blatant contempt and apathy for His children.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfnkxdu",
                    "author": "No_Scarcity8249",
                    "body": "It means we will eventually regret it. That\u2019s it. Hindsight.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfnnz4a",
                    "author": "BitcoinMD",
                    "body": "When people say that they don\u2019t actually mean that whatever happens in the future will be inherently good. It\u2019s a shorthand reference to the fact that history tends to go in the direction of greater justice and inclusion, so if you find yourself taking the side of bigotry, you should be aware that your stance might not age well.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfqwbo1",
                    "author": "NimrookFanClub",
                    "body": "https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-praises-hamas-sparks-backlash-1833630",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kfnnz4a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfo4bvg",
                    "author": "coopere20",
                    "body": "Many wrongs have been committed with good intentions and misguidance.",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfo6uh9",
                    "author": "McTitty3000",
                    "body": "History is written by the winners, so being on \"the wrong side of History\" implies that these people are going to win whatever battle they're staging or that you have to beat them",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfo6yd8",
                    "author": "Viciuniversum",
                    "body": "That\u2019s because the purpose of this phrase is to not to evaluate the morality of historical action, but to sway one to one, very specific view. The entire concept of \u201cright dude of history\u201d originated with Karl Marx's historical materialism and his idea of the inevitable victory of communism over capitalism. \nIn Marxist theory, history is seen as a series of class struggles, culminating in the overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat, leading to a communist society. This theory posits that the internal contradictions within capitalism would eventually lead to its own demise and the rise of communism. Therefore in Marxist thinking the rise of communism seen as an inevitable outcome of historical processes, aka Marxism is on \u201cthe right side of history.\u201d",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfoath4",
                    "author": "PinPinnson",
                    "body": "It's (afaiu) basically a rhetorical label. The thing it's \"pointing to\" is a concept of \"moral progress\" (*not* just any politics labeled \"progressive\"; at least in my maybe-overly-charitable setup here). The idea that our moral systems themselves (not just pplitical policies) change over time, in a (theoretically) better way.\n\nOne example is the idea of \"[moral circle expansion](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_circle_expansion)\". We start by caring about ourselves and close family, then tribe, then larger groups like villages, then nations, then potentially all humanity, then potentially sentient animals, etc.",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfole7a",
                    "author": "hungariannastyboy",
                    "body": "Neither imperialism nor foreign interventions in general have, in most instances, been based on the things you mention there, those are just ex post facto excuses and/or things the average person who didn't know any better espoused. Empire-building wasn't about \"white man's burden\" nor were Middle Eastern interventions about \"spreading democracy\" - they were about geopolitical interests (guaranteeing access to resources, safeguarding trade routes, frustrating the expansion of geopolitical rivals' interests). So, not the best examples for sure.",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "18uriv3",
                    "author": "forbiddenmemeories",
                    "body": "The \"right side of history\" and \"wrong side of history\" are phrases I've seen used a lot in recent years, and I don't think they're particularly helpful or illuminating. My main reason for this is that it creates a false dichotomy between people who are wedded to the status quo or convention and policies that uphold it, and people who want to bring about change; it also seems to suggest that striving for change is an inherently positive thing.\n\nIn practice, I think both much good and much bad has been done throughout history by people who viewed themselves as architects of progress. For example:\n\n* **Imperialism** we today regard as a shameful relic of a bygone bloodthirsty era and of antiquated attitudes on subjects like race, religion, international relations, etc. However, many of the justifications given for imperial conquest at the time rested on ideas that would have appeared (and were claimed to be) progressive: ideas like the \"white man's burden\" of having an obligation to bring their ways of life to the \"savage\" peoples of the world, of spiritual salvation to others by spreading Christianity, etc.\n* **Foreign interventionism**: similarly, more modern shifts in which the West and particularly the United States has sought to pursue a more active foreign policy such as in Vietnam, Iraq or the support for the Arab Spring in countries like Libya came with a progressive justification of serving the global community, preventing the spread of authoritarianism and expanding the realm of liberal democracy, and yet many of us regard this today as having been shameful chapters of modern US history. In principle, the idea of stopping the spread of the USSR or toppling dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Colonel Gaddafi seems to square well with progressive visions of a better world for tomorrow - after all, I'm sure we can all regard intervention against powers like Nazi Germany and imperial Japan as having been just and beneficial - but the results of these other interventions were often massive bloodshed, instability, falling quality of life and a sense that the Western powers had vainly meddled in affairs they poorly understood and only succeeded in making things worse.\n* **Lenin, Stalin, Mao et al**: Marxism is fundamentally a progressive creed with a blueprint for a future better and more equitable than the present in which we live, but figures such as Stalin and Mao who pledged to realise these ambitions in government went on to commit some of the worst atrocities in modern history. In their minds, these were presumably not acts of wanton destruction or cruelty but rather necessary and just sacrifices that had to be made to advance their righteous cause.\n* **Eugenics**: Eugenics is by most of us today also indelibly associated with the Nazis and thus often categorised as an extremely conservative strain of thought, but once again it emerged as an alleged means of advancing the cause of humanity and improving our lives, with support from 'progressive' figures around the late 19th and early 20th centuries such as John Harvey Kellogg and Margaret Sanger, and opposition from institutions generally considered conservative such as the Catholic church, and associated traditional beliefs such as in the 'sanctity of life'.\n\nThese and other examples are all cases which have certainly ended up on the 'wrong side of history', that we look back on today as abhorrent, and yet which emerged with the same justification as behind any strain of thought we might deem progressive - i.e., progressing some feature of our lives and improving human society overall. We could of course question the sincerity of these actors' motivations - that the imperialists cared far more about gold and diamonds than about conversion, that despots like Stalin and Mao had no real attachment to Marxist ideals, etc. - but the same accusations can be levelled at anyone who cites some creed or other as their reason for supporting certain policies.\n\nIt seems to me then that trying to speculate about how future generations will view our actions or whether they will contribute to a historical tide of progress is not especially helpful, as awful policies can emerge from these kinds of goals just as easily as beneficial ones. This is not to argue that progress is a myth or that change is bad, and indeed there are many policies and causes today regarded as 'progressive' that I have support or at least sympathy for; it's merely to argue that change also isn't always good and that change and progress are not synonymous, and thus that phrases like the \"right\" or \"wrong\" side of history are unhelpful as they frame opposing change as more or less meaning to oppose what is good.\n\nCMV.",
                    "date": "2023-12-30",
                    "score": 125,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The \"right/wrong side of history\" is not a helpful concept when considering which policies or creeds to support",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/18uriv3/cmv_the_rightwrong_side_of_history_is_not_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kfq8l5u",
                    "author": "Teddy_Funsisco",
                    "body": "I think your initial premise is correct, but the explanation doesn't mean anything to the people you want to convince. \n\nTo me, the right/wrong side of history argument doesn't mean anything because people aren't thinking that far into the future when they're dead and can't be directly judged for their actions now, they only care about immediate results.",
                    "date": "2023-12-31",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "18uriv3"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1940ojb",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                "date": "2024-01-11",
                "score": 89,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "khctbud",
                "author": "t_sarkkinen",
                "body": ">But if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B.\n\nWhat happens, when half the theater wants to come back tomorrow to watch part B? Do they reserve the entire theater, just for them? Do they sell the remaining half of the tickets for that showing? If theres only a day in between, how would they ensure that it doesnt get overbooked etc etc?\n\n>Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\n5 minutes is nowhere near enough, at least at my local movie theater it wouldnt be. What if they have multiple long showings, and they happen to have a break at the same time? And to get popcorn too? It would take like 20 minutes at minimum for all the people to go to the bathroom, get popcorn and return to their seats.\n\nHow long would the movie have to be to get split/have a break?\n\nAn intermission could work, but there are still things to work out.\n\nIMO, if you cant handle a long movie, its your problem. Dont go and see it at the movies, wait for the DVD/streaming release.",
                "date": "2024-01-11",
                "score": 45,
                "parent_id": "1940ojb"
            },
            {
                "id": "khctmcx",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": ">What happens, when half the theater wants to come back tomorrow to watch part B? Do they reserve the entire theater, just for them? Do they sell the remaining half of the tickets for that showing? If theres only a day in between, how would they ensure that it doesnt get overbooked etc etc?\n\n!delta. Logistics of this would be difficult.  \nYou would be better off just selling two different tickets to two different shows but this wouldn't allow impromptu decision making. You would have know before hand if you want to walk away.",
                "date": "2024-01-11",
                "score": 12,
                "parent_id": "khctbud"
            },
            {
                "id": "khctqlf",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/t_sarkkinen ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/t_sarkkinen)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-01-11",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "khctmcx"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khcr3zh",
                    "author": "NoAside5523",
                    "body": "Its a cool idea, but I have to imagine it would be ripe for abuse. Unless you want to empty the theater between showings, it would be very easy to just buy a ticket for part A and then just not leave for part B. In practice some people already do this -- scan a ticket for a movie early in the day and sneak in to other theaters to watch more movies. But the number of people who would want to watch both part A and B of one movie and not pay full price would be far higher then people who want to watch multiple different movies in a row.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khcseb1",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": ">In practice some people already do this -- scan a ticket for a movie early in the day and sneak in to other theaters to watch more movies.\n\nSo this wouldn't create any more issues than already exists.\n\nAll you could switch halls between shows or you could leave and needing to activate the part B ticket if you want to use it tomorrow.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "khcr3zh"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khcriph",
                    "author": "anonymousredditorPC",
                    "body": "People can sit at their computer and phone for hours but a 3hr movie is too much",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khcs7b7",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We have option to stop or move at our leisure.\n\nIn movies we have to sit for 3 hours all risk losing part of the movie. There is no pause button.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "khcriph"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khcul6a",
                    "author": "Mr-Warmth",
                    "body": "Yes.  100%\n\nThey would sell more concessions as well.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khdb9za",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Mr-Warmth \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Mr-Warmth&message=Mr-Warmth%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/-/khcul6a/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "khcul6a"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khcytap",
                    "author": "wanderingtaoist",
                    "body": "You actually used to have intermissions in the movies, e.g. in The Godfather. They have been used to switch projectors/reels, which is not needed anymore. Also, movies have actually been edited with intermission in mind, which doesn't happen anymore.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khd29bn",
                    "author": "hewasaraverboy",
                    "body": "Killers of the flower already had a built in intermission \n\nJust take a nap when you are bored and wake up an hour later and you haven\u2019t missed anything",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khd9mu2",
                    "author": "viniciusbfonseca",
                    "body": "No it didn't, some theatres decided to add one, but Scorsese's editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, was furious about it. \n\nYou can read about it [here](https://deadline.com/2023/10/killers-of-the-flower-moon-intermissions-paramount-1235585730/)",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "khd29bn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khd4c2t",
                    "author": "AdTrick7283",
                    "body": "Your 1st point states that movie theatres should offer split tickets where one buys a ticket to see 2 parts of a movie separately. However, separate tickets should not be needed. Many Indians movies are 3 hours long and they offer intermissions in the movie. I imagine that most Hollywood movies are like this as well.\n\nYour 2nd point states that if someone cannot handle a 3 to 3.5 hour movie, then they should view the movie at different intervals. However, most movies are 3 to 3.5 hours long, woth intervals, which means that it is practically impossible for a movie-goer to have a 1.5 hour attention-span. Again, only referring to Indian movies; do not know the scene at Hollywood. Even then, they can rest their short attention-span brains during songs.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khd7ha6",
                    "author": "Dennis_enzo",
                    "body": "Maybe if you can't focus on watching a movie all the way through, going to the movies isn't something that you should do in the first place. There's nothing worse than getting ripped straight out of a movie by an intermission, and having to wait for 15 minutes for the people with poor bladder control or tiktok attention spans.\n\nIf you need a bathroom break, just go. Missing five minutes of the movie rarely means that you can't follow it anymore. Or maybe just don't down a liter of coke beforehand.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": -1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khft5c8",
                    "author": "MicMix5",
                    "body": "Coming from a country where we used to have intermissions up until the late 2000s and having brought up with this experience I can tell you I kind of look down on people who enjoy the intermission free movie experience. You guys just don't know what you are missing... Getting a refill on your pop corn or soda, chatting and speculating about the second half of the movie, stretching,making a short phonecall and of course using the bathroom without having to lose any part of the movie. Those were the days! Also in your comment you severely downplay the sheer amount of people who would benefit from an intermission. Not everyone is a couch potato who can stay still for 3 plus hours. A lot of people (including older people) need to stretch or need to use the bathroom without having medical issues with their bladder.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "khd7ha6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khd8pve",
                    "author": "viniciusbfonseca",
                    "body": "The movie theatre doesn't have the right to edit a movie, there's a reason why Scorsese was so angry when a few theatres were adding an intermission to Killers of the Flower Moon: the way he shaped his story and had his (Academy Award winning) editor edit it had a reason for it to be so, and putting an intermission hinders that. \n\nI think that movies that are three hours or more should throughly consider adding an intermission when possible, as it was done 60 years ago (although the reason for that was that they couldn't put the entire movie in one reel and it needed to be changed), I think Oppenheimer- for instance - could've had an intermission, but Scorsese was right that Killers of the Flower Moon should be experienced non-stop. \n\nNowadays movies get to streaming and VOD in just a few months, so if you aren't able to stomach a long movie you can just watch it at home and pause whenever you want, but if I'm going to the theatre to watch something I want to have the experience that the creator intended for me to have, and not have some owner decide that point x is the time to have a break. \n\nBy all means we should be telling filmmakers to add intermissions to their long films, but that intermission should happen at the point they pick AND if they pick it. \n\nAs for having the two tickets and returning another day: some plays (like Harry Potter, The Inheritance, and the recent revival of Angels in America) that are in two parts (each with two or three acts and intermissions between them, mind you) did something similar by having you decide when you will be returning for part two at the time you purchase your ticket, so it could be at the showing of that same day (if available), or the next day or even the next week. \n\nIt does make that there might not be any more room on your preferred date of return and you'll have to settle for another, but it's the only way that the theatre itself can know how many people there'll be at each performance and for you to have a reserved seat. I personally don't think that that should be done for movies - unless the filmmaker wants to make something that is six hours long, like what Ridley Scott wanted \"Napoleon\" to be - three and a half hours (with a possible 15min intermission) isn't that long to commit and it would cause a pain for the theatres itself (who would probably have to charge double for the tickets) and likely hinder your experience.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khf4rzs",
                    "author": "tanglekelp",
                    "body": "I\u2019m not really sure your first part is true. At least when I was younger intermissions were added to every movie by the theatre, I doubt these were added by the filmmakers or that the theatre was doing anything illegal",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "khd8pve"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khdlhn5",
                    "author": "Squirtle_from_PT",
                    "body": "I agree with the part about the break. No one should expect you to stay in you seat for 3 straight hours + commercials.\n\n> But if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B.\n\nBut this would be logistically impossible. Cinemas wouldn't sell one and a half seats for the price of one, when they wouldn't know whether you'd come on the 2nd day or not.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khdrl9s",
                    "author": "AQuestionAnswerer",
                    "body": "I was just talking about this with my wife like a month ago. I might even lower the length to 2 hours. I feel like I almost always have to get up at least once in a movie lol.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khei5dm",
                    "author": "housington-the-3rd",
                    "body": "3 hours is already long enough to be at the theatre. As much as an intermission sounds nice it just extends the time you're there and increases the chances of spending more money. Saying that it seems like a good idea for the theatre.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khf62pu",
                    "author": "tanglekelp",
                    "body": "In my country intermissions used to be the norm but the (now) biggest movie theatre chain removed them. The reason? It\u2019s way too hard to plan for when it comes to selling popcorn etc. If you have 12 theatre rooms without intermissions you can plan for it. You have popcorn ready when each movies starts, and in between the rush moments you have time to clean, go on break, refill things, change popcorn that wasn\u2019t sold etc. Then when movies end people also sometimes want to buy something but you can plan for that too. \n\nAdd in intermissions and it becomes a logistical mess. However you plan you will end up with problems.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khg2bcd",
                    "author": "NrFive",
                    "body": "We have various cinema chains here in NL. There are a couple of them which offer intermissions to get snacks and a toilet break. Usually 15-30 mins. Sometimes longer depending on the feature.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khgepuq",
                    "author": "6oober",
                    "body": "I wouldn't dismiss this idea. Live Theater does it for different reasons. I think an innovative movie theater might be into it. I don't think it should be an all or nothing type thing. \n\nSome movie screenings would benefit from being split and some would not. You've given great reasons why and others have given reasons why not. I think it'd be a great gimmick for a small movie theater to try out and if it gets some traction, the larger mainstream movie theaters will try it out too.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khh9iho",
                    "author": "Constellation-88",
                    "body": "If you can\u2019t focus on a movie for more than 1.5 hours, wait til it comes out on streaming and watch it at home.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-01-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khipigx",
                    "author": "MilkyCowTits420",
                    "body": "It's not hard to sit down and pay attention for 3 hours, if you can't do today just wait and watch it at home.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-01-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1940ojb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "We regularly see 3 hour long movies in theater nowadays like new The killer of the flower moon.\n\nMovie theaters should offer a split tickets where you buy a ticket and get to see Part A and Part B with short 5 minute intermission between those.\n\nBut if you can only manage to focus on 1,5 hour experience you only use ticket to part A and come tomorrow to watch part B. Or if you want to sit on movie theater for 3 hours straight without bathroom break you can do it (or have 5 minute bathroom break at intermission).\n\nMovie goers would benefit from it with extended freedom and movie theaters would benefit from it by having opportunity to sell more popcorn during intermission.",
                    "date": "2024-01-11",
                    "score": 89,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Movies lasting 3 or more hours should offer split tickets with intermission",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1940ojb/cmv_movies_lasting_3_or_more_hours_should_offer/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "khxpy4f",
                    "author": "Appropriate-Ad8337",
                    "body": "Idk about the split days idea, but I do think 3 hour movies should have an intermission. Every single 2+ hour play I've been to has had one... so it's kind of weird that movies don't (and sell drinks. What the heck. My stupid tiny bladder. I don't actually drink anything at the movies anymore because I've suffered enough).",
                    "date": "2024-01-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1940ojb"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "19ato86",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kingcp9",
                "author": "IconiclyIncognito",
                "body": "Both of your experiences are not what the therapist recommended. So they're almost irrelevant. I would say both of your experiences were going about it in a not great way. Which is to be expected since you were inexperienced. Most people mess up at that age.\n\nThe advice is more concentrated on asking people who know her well and have a vested interest in her being happy, if it is something to pursue.\n\nIt does have benefits. You listed some as cons, but it can be either way.  Yes her friends can lie to you. This generally shouldn't make it harder on you. It's intended to be graceful towards both of you. If you are asking someone that actually knows her and cares about her happiness then they will easily let you down before you get yourself into an uncomfortable position. \n\nYes you can also use body and social ques to determine if you should ask someone out. But not everyone is good at that. Are you?  Are you experienced with it? \n\nIt sounds like you asked your therapist for advice because you recognized you were going about things incorrectly. Don't crowdsource, or get enough information for a research paper. Follow social norms and boundaries. Asking a singular person if their friend is single and might be interested is normal, socially acceptable, and a great option.",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "19ato86"
            },
            {
                "id": "kinkh5s",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "You have great points. I agree my previous experiences were more about taking the advice incorrectly and less about the validity of the actual advice itself.\n\n>The advice is more concentrated on asking people who know her well and have a vested interest in her being happy, if it is something to pursue.\n\nI also think it's more concentrated on close/trusted friends, which is not who I sought in high school.\n\n>If you are asking someone that actually knows her and cares about her happiness then they will easily let you down before you get yourself into an uncomfortable position. \n\nI agree that lying can have some benefits. In addition, I like to believe that it just doesn't happen as often as in high school.\n\n>Don't crowdsource, or get enough information for a research paper. Follow social norms and boundaries. Asking a singular person if their friend is single and might be interested is normal, socially acceptable, and a great option.\n\nGood idea. What I'll do moving forward is, maybe seek advice from a few people, but mostly speaking with my interest directly, asking them on a date, and following social norms and boundaries. I no longer think that's the same as crowdsourcing in lieu of actually asking the person out. !delta",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "kingcp9"
            },
            {
                "id": "kinkl7h",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/IconiclyIncognito ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/IconiclyIncognito)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "kinkh5s"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kincnza",
                    "author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
                    "body": "Nearly a thousand words and who knows how much in billable hours to dance around the simplest solution...\n\n\"Hey, \\[person that I'm interested in\\] I think you're great and would love to know if you're interested too. Can I take you on a date?\" followed by \"awesome, can't wait!\" or \"no worries, I totally understand.\"\n\nWhat on earth makes the situation more complicated than this in your mind?",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kindtcm",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This post isn't arguing against stating your intentions/asking a girl on a date. It's about my personal pushback against seeking advice from their friend on the specific situation, and generally *because* it's far easier and simpler to ask them on a date.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kincnza"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kiney69",
                    "author": "eggs-benedryl",
                    "body": "God I'm glad facebook only just started being used when I graduated.. yikes.\n\nMost adults don't give enough of a shit to sabotage you or even care one way or another. Are you in college where this gossipy cliquey behavior is still prevalent? \n\nIt also occurs to me that you should probably be talking about this with your therapist and not reddit, they exist to help you with these feelings.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kinfh5f",
                    "author": "RedCravat",
                    "body": "I would suggest taking a step back from your perspective, and try thinking about each person in this scenario in a way that genuinely cares about their well-being.\n\nI'm not a doctor or anything, its just a practice I do to help me pull myself out of these type of mental labyrinths of doubt",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "king30m",
                    "author": "Relative-One-4060",
                    "body": "The issue is in both of your situations.\n\nIn situation 1, you took Snapchat Q&A as a truthful and logical statement. Do you really think Snapchat is a reliable source for that information?\n\nIn situation 2, you went around asking multiple people, and then got dragged into weird high school drama.\n\nThose situations are not indicative of adult dating.\n\nIt is totally fine, in certain situations, to ask the friend of someone you are interested in if they are single or would even be open to considering a relationship with you or anyone. Nearly all adults would respond with decent information, or just say that they don't know, or that you should ask the person you're interested in directly.\n\nIts telling that the only examples you could use for this viewpoint are ones from High school, a place where people are not fully matured yet.\n\nI feel like its definitely okay to ask because its not breaking boundaries, and can help you avoid awkward situations or friend-breaking questions.\n\nYou saying that its \"not okay\" would imply that its somehow immoral or breaking some social etiquette.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "king6gx",
                    "author": "Lylieth",
                    "body": "Your personal experiences does not establish this to be true for everyone.  It can far easier to ask a close friend of who you like; if you are not comfortable asking who you like directly.\n\n1. I don't understand the energy bit; unless you are saying you should just ask them.  But, then why are we here?  IMO it also has zero to do with communicating through someone in this aspect. The intention is to obtain answers\\info ***before*** going directly to them, no?  I mean, that is what I take from the title and proposition from you therapist.\n2. And?  If you feel this why, why go through their friend?  This isn't an always thing.  It's just as possible you already know said person and have established trust, no?  I don't understand the automatic assumption of a negative.\n3. You don't really follow through on this point, at least that I have taken away.  Dating is to find out if you are good together more than just acquaintances\\friends.  This can still be done by asking info about them first from their close friend, no?  Why or why not?",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kingvfr",
                    "author": "guile_theme",
                    "body": "Do not ask anyone out until you have a better grasp on what other people are.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kini587",
                    "author": "listenyall",
                    "body": "Of course it's ok. Before the internet, this is how relationships happened--you met a friend of a friend somewhere, you say to your mutual friend \"hey I really liked meeting X on Saturday, do you know if she's single? Do you think we'd get along?\" and then if the answer is yes you ask the person out.   \n\n\nIt is of course not a replacement for talking to someone directly, but can be a very useful first step, especially in situations where you know the friend of the person you are interested in well but don't know them well at all.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kinqpky",
                    "author": "Grandemestizo",
                    "body": "Buddy, you need to relax. Take a deep breath and get out of the war room. This isn't a puzzle to be solved or a science to research. If you're interested in a person, casually get to know them. If a woman sees that you're planning and strategizing and gathering intel on her, she's gonna think you're some kind of weirdo.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kinqqfy",
                    "author": "AstronomerParticular",
                    "body": "I think you are kinda missing the point. \n\nYou should not ask 10 people if someone is single and how to approach them. This is just creepy.\n\nJust ask one of their friend \"Hey is ... single.\" If they say yes then you can try flirting with them. If they say no just move on.\n\nThe problem with flirting directly is that it can be very unconfortable for people who are in a relationship. \n\nAlso it does not really matter if the friend tells them that you asked. When they suddenly start avoiding you then you already did not have a chance form the start.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kioeasc",
                    "author": "SaberTruth2",
                    "body": "You\u2019re an adult now, do not base your decisions on something that happened in HS. It\u2019s not perfect in every situation, but it\u2019s a very good idea in many. A lot depends on your relationship/familiarity with her and the friend. Every case is different and I\u2019m sure it makes for a better story to go it alone, but any good friend is not only gonna tell you if it\u2019s a good idea, but potentially help you woo her.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kipd4qz",
                    "author": "Isogash",
                    "body": "There's a common problem in younger people who don't have much relationship experience where they think of dating like a difficult videogame level. When they do something and it leads to perceived \"failure\" they tend to believe that they made a mistake or went wrong somewhere; that there was some path to success and it got fucked along the way. There's then a tendency to try and compensate for or control their dating behaviour to avoid repeating the same perceived mistakes.\n\nThe reality is quite starkly different: there is no script for success. The *only* thing that matters in dating is whether or not the other person is also interested in you, and you have no control over this, practically speaking. In fact, if someone is *really* interested in you too, everything could go more or less completely wrong and you'd still end up together (assuming the practicality of it actually works.) If someone needs you to jump through a bunch of specific hoops in order for them to be interested, that should actually be raising some red flags: it means there is a lack of genuine interest. They would drop those hoops for someone they were really interested in.\n\nIn answer to your original question with this established, asking about someone's relationship status is a totally normal thing adults do all the time. It's less awkward for most people than asking directly and the mutual friend to warn you if you are risk of offending them (even though being romantically interested is not a problem itself, some people get freaked out by it because they themselves have problems.)  After all your intention is only to figure out whether or not there is potential for *mutual* interest in a healthy relationship here. It's still just a first step, the next being to talk to the person directly and see if they are receptive.\n\nSo, you never really got fucked over. It was clearly a no go from the start and the friends you asked gave you conflicting answers probably because not all of them know her as well as each other. The ones who said she wasn't interested were probably right, and there's nothing you could have done about it. It's not a reflection of anything wrong with you. For all you know, she could be exclusively attracted to clowns and just hasn't told anyone. It's totally up to her to be interested or not for any reason she likes.\n\nOf course, I am not at all saying that how you behave and the choices you make won't affect people's overall impression of you, nor that learning how to be more confident, mature and graceful in general isn't going to significantly raise the likelihood of people becoming romantically interested in you, and your repuation in general too (people talk!) However, these are big *long term* changes in behaviour that will come with more life experience, they aren't things you will be able to learn overnight (but don't let that stop you from practicing!)\n\nTrust that investing time into building your character will be the best thing in better preparing you for success in your future relationships, and that looking for **genuine** ***mutual*** **interest** is the de factor recipe for success when dating. Be yourself and stop trying to follow a script and remember that a crush or date not working out is *not* failure, it is success.",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kipf1x3",
                    "author": "oversoul00",
                    "body": "You're examples sound less like looking for basic information and more like you looking for comfort and support.\n\n\nIf there is a spectrum between indirect and direct you do want to be on the side of being direct but there is some wiggle room to casually mention an interest or ask if it's worth pursuing.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kipfyra",
                    "author": "Atticus104",
                    "body": "You can ask for advice from a mutual friend about someone you are interested in. Done well it demostrates you are serious, and that you respect their friends opinions, but there are some ways to do this and way it shouldn't be done. \n\nLimit the number of people you mention this to only 1 or 2 people. Asking a bunch of people behind her back while not speaking to her directly set up the situation where she likely felt powerless with a lot of attetnion on her, as not everyone is watching for signs of you haveing made a move. It is not a good feeling, and she could resent you for it. In stead if you are curious if they are seeing someone, wait for a time to ask subtly. Less you seem over eager the better. \n\nThere is not a secret formula for success, you will be rejected time to time. The difference knowing how not to get blocked is knowing when quit. You keep an aquintance, who may one day connect you to a better match. you never know.",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kiqhxtr",
                    "author": "FlyingNFireType",
                    "body": "I don't think her friend leaking information is a bad thing. One it prepares her for what is coming so there's less chance at a deer in the headlight moments and if you are really anxious/social awkward you're likely to fuck up your communication anyways and her friend can communicate it more clearly and give you more room for error and your initial attempt. Also people like people who they know like them more but that's not pure instant they need to process the information that the person likes them. All in all if the info got leaked you'd have a better chance.",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "19ato86",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kinjil2",
                "author": "billbar",
                "body": "I think you're viewing 'asking for advice' as 'help with landing a date.' I almost always do a small amount of due diligence if I'm asking someone out with whom I have mutual friends, but I do it strictly to see if they are single and absolutely NOT to try and get said friend to help me out in any way. This way it avoids a potentially uncomfortable situation where she has to turn me down due to being in a relationship, or worse, me looking like I'm Mr. Stealyagurl.\n\nTo address your reasons:\n\n1) There is a huge gray area between talking to a bunch of people about a girl, getting her life story, etc. and simply asking one person if the girl is single. If you're going around asking 'several' of her classmates about her, yeah, that's bizarre, and it will for sure get back to her and show a lack of confidence. If you ask one person if she's single, the answer is yes, and you ask the girl out VERY shortly thereafter, it shows respect for their life circumstances. There's no reason why you should be 'wasting energy' by asking about the girl... it takes just about zero energy to ask \"hey, your friend is cute, is she single?\"\n\n2) The girl's friends have the girl's well-being in mind. There is basically no chance of them lying and saying \"she's single\" when she's not. You keep talking about getting 'wrong info,' so please see point 1 above. Just ask if she's single. The rest of the info, you get directly from her on the date.\n\n3) Again, I don't see why you are trying to see if you have relationship potential with a girl through someone else. I agree that the point of dating is to get to know someone and to see if you're compatible, and better yet, if there's potential for a loving future. None of this information should be gathered from a friend.\n\nYou seem young, as your examples of how it has gone bad were from some dumb Snapchat thing (...why?) and then doing it completely the wrong way, by asking 'several' of her classmates. It's extremely normal to have the respect to ask if someone is single before asking them out. I have asked tons of friends of girls if the girl was single, and it can only show confidence ASSUMING YOU ASK THE GIRL OUT QUICKLY. I agree that going around town making your crush known to other people is going to make you look like a floppy cock. Otherwise, I can't think of anything that is a risk when asking if a girl is single.\n\nAlso, people with dating experience don't have crushes on people they don't know. Once you date enough, you'll realize that thinking someone is cute/attractive doesn't equal having a crush on them. Ask a friend if she's single, and then confidently ask her out when you know she is. You got this brother!",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 5,
                "parent_id": "19ato86"
            },
            {
                "id": "kino3i9",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "You have great points! I like your method: asking if the girl is single and checking with one person/a select few people if I can pursue the relationship, and then just carrying it on by asking the girl out from there.\n\nWhether a girl is single or dating another person can be gathered from a friend; relationship potential CANNOT be. I think the people in high school who gave me the bad information are in the minority and not representative of actual adult dating.\n\nAnd in my high school examples I admit I tried to gather the relationship potential *through* other people to *bypass* the part of actually asking her out. If I only try to crowdsource information and do NOT ask the girl out, it shows a lack of confidence and creates an uncomfortable situation.\n\nThank you brother! !delta",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kinjil2"
            },
            {
                "id": "kino6pb",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/billbar ([3\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/billbar)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-01-19",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kino3i9"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kincnza",
                    "author": "GotAJeepNeedAJeep",
                    "body": "Nearly a thousand words and who knows how much in billable hours to dance around the simplest solution...\n\n\"Hey, \\[person that I'm interested in\\] I think you're great and would love to know if you're interested too. Can I take you on a date?\" followed by \"awesome, can't wait!\" or \"no worries, I totally understand.\"\n\nWhat on earth makes the situation more complicated than this in your mind?",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kindtcm",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "This post isn't arguing against stating your intentions/asking a girl on a date. It's about my personal pushback against seeking advice from their friend on the specific situation, and generally *because* it's far easier and simpler to ask them on a date.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kincnza"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kiney69",
                    "author": "eggs-benedryl",
                    "body": "God I'm glad facebook only just started being used when I graduated.. yikes.\n\nMost adults don't give enough of a shit to sabotage you or even care one way or another. Are you in college where this gossipy cliquey behavior is still prevalent? \n\nIt also occurs to me that you should probably be talking about this with your therapist and not reddit, they exist to help you with these feelings.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kinfh5f",
                    "author": "RedCravat",
                    "body": "I would suggest taking a step back from your perspective, and try thinking about each person in this scenario in a way that genuinely cares about their well-being.\n\nI'm not a doctor or anything, its just a practice I do to help me pull myself out of these type of mental labyrinths of doubt",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "king30m",
                    "author": "Relative-One-4060",
                    "body": "The issue is in both of your situations.\n\nIn situation 1, you took Snapchat Q&A as a truthful and logical statement. Do you really think Snapchat is a reliable source for that information?\n\nIn situation 2, you went around asking multiple people, and then got dragged into weird high school drama.\n\nThose situations are not indicative of adult dating.\n\nIt is totally fine, in certain situations, to ask the friend of someone you are interested in if they are single or would even be open to considering a relationship with you or anyone. Nearly all adults would respond with decent information, or just say that they don't know, or that you should ask the person you're interested in directly.\n\nIts telling that the only examples you could use for this viewpoint are ones from High school, a place where people are not fully matured yet.\n\nI feel like its definitely okay to ask because its not breaking boundaries, and can help you avoid awkward situations or friend-breaking questions.\n\nYou saying that its \"not okay\" would imply that its somehow immoral or breaking some social etiquette.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "king6gx",
                    "author": "Lylieth",
                    "body": "Your personal experiences does not establish this to be true for everyone.  It can far easier to ask a close friend of who you like; if you are not comfortable asking who you like directly.\n\n1. I don't understand the energy bit; unless you are saying you should just ask them.  But, then why are we here?  IMO it also has zero to do with communicating through someone in this aspect. The intention is to obtain answers\\info ***before*** going directly to them, no?  I mean, that is what I take from the title and proposition from you therapist.\n2. And?  If you feel this why, why go through their friend?  This isn't an always thing.  It's just as possible you already know said person and have established trust, no?  I don't understand the automatic assumption of a negative.\n3. You don't really follow through on this point, at least that I have taken away.  Dating is to find out if you are good together more than just acquaintances\\friends.  This can still be done by asking info about them first from their close friend, no?  Why or why not?",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kingvfr",
                    "author": "guile_theme",
                    "body": "Do not ask anyone out until you have a better grasp on what other people are.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kini587",
                    "author": "listenyall",
                    "body": "Of course it's ok. Before the internet, this is how relationships happened--you met a friend of a friend somewhere, you say to your mutual friend \"hey I really liked meeting X on Saturday, do you know if she's single? Do you think we'd get along?\" and then if the answer is yes you ask the person out.   \n\n\nIt is of course not a replacement for talking to someone directly, but can be a very useful first step, especially in situations where you know the friend of the person you are interested in well but don't know them well at all.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kinqpky",
                    "author": "Grandemestizo",
                    "body": "Buddy, you need to relax. Take a deep breath and get out of the war room. This isn't a puzzle to be solved or a science to research. If you're interested in a person, casually get to know them. If a woman sees that you're planning and strategizing and gathering intel on her, she's gonna think you're some kind of weirdo.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kinqqfy",
                    "author": "AstronomerParticular",
                    "body": "I think you are kinda missing the point. \n\nYou should not ask 10 people if someone is single and how to approach them. This is just creepy.\n\nJust ask one of their friend \"Hey is ... single.\" If they say yes then you can try flirting with them. If they say no just move on.\n\nThe problem with flirting directly is that it can be very unconfortable for people who are in a relationship. \n\nAlso it does not really matter if the friend tells them that you asked. When they suddenly start avoiding you then you already did not have a chance form the start.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kioeasc",
                    "author": "SaberTruth2",
                    "body": "You\u2019re an adult now, do not base your decisions on something that happened in HS. It\u2019s not perfect in every situation, but it\u2019s a very good idea in many. A lot depends on your relationship/familiarity with her and the friend. Every case is different and I\u2019m sure it makes for a better story to go it alone, but any good friend is not only gonna tell you if it\u2019s a good idea, but potentially help you woo her.",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kipd4qz",
                    "author": "Isogash",
                    "body": "There's a common problem in younger people who don't have much relationship experience where they think of dating like a difficult videogame level. When they do something and it leads to perceived \"failure\" they tend to believe that they made a mistake or went wrong somewhere; that there was some path to success and it got fucked along the way. There's then a tendency to try and compensate for or control their dating behaviour to avoid repeating the same perceived mistakes.\n\nThe reality is quite starkly different: there is no script for success. The *only* thing that matters in dating is whether or not the other person is also interested in you, and you have no control over this, practically speaking. In fact, if someone is *really* interested in you too, everything could go more or less completely wrong and you'd still end up together (assuming the practicality of it actually works.) If someone needs you to jump through a bunch of specific hoops in order for them to be interested, that should actually be raising some red flags: it means there is a lack of genuine interest. They would drop those hoops for someone they were really interested in.\n\nIn answer to your original question with this established, asking about someone's relationship status is a totally normal thing adults do all the time. It's less awkward for most people than asking directly and the mutual friend to warn you if you are risk of offending them (even though being romantically interested is not a problem itself, some people get freaked out by it because they themselves have problems.)  After all your intention is only to figure out whether or not there is potential for *mutual* interest in a healthy relationship here. It's still just a first step, the next being to talk to the person directly and see if they are receptive.\n\nSo, you never really got fucked over. It was clearly a no go from the start and the friends you asked gave you conflicting answers probably because not all of them know her as well as each other. The ones who said she wasn't interested were probably right, and there's nothing you could have done about it. It's not a reflection of anything wrong with you. For all you know, she could be exclusively attracted to clowns and just hasn't told anyone. It's totally up to her to be interested or not for any reason she likes.\n\nOf course, I am not at all saying that how you behave and the choices you make won't affect people's overall impression of you, nor that learning how to be more confident, mature and graceful in general isn't going to significantly raise the likelihood of people becoming romantically interested in you, and your repuation in general too (people talk!) However, these are big *long term* changes in behaviour that will come with more life experience, they aren't things you will be able to learn overnight (but don't let that stop you from practicing!)\n\nTrust that investing time into building your character will be the best thing in better preparing you for success in your future relationships, and that looking for **genuine** ***mutual*** **interest** is the de factor recipe for success when dating. Be yourself and stop trying to follow a script and remember that a crush or date not working out is *not* failure, it is success.",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kipf1x3",
                    "author": "oversoul00",
                    "body": "You're examples sound less like looking for basic information and more like you looking for comfort and support.\n\n\nIf there is a spectrum between indirect and direct you do want to be on the side of being direct but there is some wiggle room to casually mention an interest or ask if it's worth pursuing.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kipfyra",
                    "author": "Atticus104",
                    "body": "You can ask for advice from a mutual friend about someone you are interested in. Done well it demostrates you are serious, and that you respect their friends opinions, but there are some ways to do this and way it shouldn't be done. \n\nLimit the number of people you mention this to only 1 or 2 people. Asking a bunch of people behind her back while not speaking to her directly set up the situation where she likely felt powerless with a lot of attetnion on her, as not everyone is watching for signs of you haveing made a move. It is not a good feeling, and she could resent you for it. In stead if you are curious if they are seeing someone, wait for a time to ask subtly. Less you seem over eager the better. \n\nThere is not a secret formula for success, you will be rejected time to time. The difference knowing how not to get blocked is knowing when quit. You keep an aquintance, who may one day connect you to a better match. you never know.",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "19ato86",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "Yesterday during my session with my therapist, she said it's okay to ask a woman's friend's about them if I'm interested in them. For example, if I ask if the person is single, they may say \"Yes, she is single, she might be interested\" or \"No, she has a boyfriend, sorry\", for example.\n\nHowever, I've been hesitant to do that and I like to treat crushes as a one-man, \"no one but yourself, trust no one\" job. This is for a few main reasons:\n\n1. I feel that it would be putting my energy into the wrong thing. People say that you should talk to the woman DIRECTLY when pursuing a relationship. This means gauging her potential interest through social cues, stating your intentions/asking her on a date, etc. I think telling other people you like a woman carries the risk of them passing the knowledge to your love interest *before* you can state your feelings directly, which can show a lack of confidence. It would block direct communication of your feelings and thereby reduce the chances of a *clearly communicated* romantic relationship. Why spend time and energy trying to learn about a woman and communicate your interests *through* another person when you could use the same time and energy to ask her out, get to know her better, and gauge her interest via social cues? Why do all sorts of crowdsourcing and gathering enough information to write a research paper over... a simple crush? Something that plenty of people have and can handle with ease?\n\n2. The woman's mutual friends aren't obligated to give me info about her. In fact, they may even give me the wrong info if they aren't comfortable giving me true information, which could screw me over in the long run. All of that could be avoided by cutting all the extra people out of the equation and talking to the woman directly.\n\n3. I feel that it entirely misses the point of dating. If you want to establish a relationship, people say, state your intentions and ask her out. The question is not: \"Is she single?\" \"Does she have a boyfriend?\" The question is: \"How can I communicate my intentions and seeing if this person likes me back?\" Do I want to find out if a woman is *single*, or if I have relationship potential with said woman?\n\nMy hesitation comes from poor experiences in grade school. Two that come to mind are:\n\n1. Senior year of HS. I liked a girl from band. Her friend posted on his Snapchat story responding to an anonymous comment. The comment asked \"Is [crush] single?\" to which he responded \"Yeah, go hit her up\". I commented on the post asking how I can do that. He didn't directly answer the question, and instead asked \"Did you ask that?\" The conversation didn't continue after that. A few weeks later, I heard the girl was dating the male friend in question. On his story, he responded to an anonymous comment asking \"Are you and [crush] dating?\" by confirming the statement.\n\n2. Also senior year of HS. I tried pursuing a relationship with a girl from my class, and I admit I was not in the right in this situation because I didn't take signals of her not being interested, mistook friendliness for romantic attraction, and became distressed over not getting what I wanted. I asked several of my classmates if she was single, to which I got several different answers. Most of them just didn't know, some of them said she was single but not looking for a romantic partner, some of them said she had a boyfriend, and even one of them said she was flirting with a guy but I could somehow \"overtake\" him if I tried hard enough. One day I asked the girl \"are you dating someone\", to which she said no but it was an uncomfortable no. I admit this was a big mistake on my part. I strongly believe some of them told her I liked her. One day I messaged her asking about going to the beach during spring break with some of our peers, to which she said she would not be able to since she would be traveling out of the country. One day I was with some of her friends during the lunch break. They told me they knew I had a crush on her, so they tried videocalling her on my phone (it didn't go through), then asked what I would do if she had COVID (this was in 2020 right before quarantine), then dared me to sing a song about her. One of them also told me she would actually not be traveling out of the country and therefore could bring her on the beach trip. A few days later, the girl blocked me on my socials and the beach trip didn't happen due to quarantine. I was shocked because I felt that \"I did everything I was supposed to do, and I still got blocked.\"\n\nMy trust in other people went down after that and since then I became scared of asking for advice about a specific person from my peers out of fear of being given the wrong information and fucked over as a result. \n\nHowever, I have begun making some effort to rebuild my trust with my peers in that sense. It was only recently in early 2023 that I opened up to a select few of my closest friends about a platonic obsession (squish) with a female friend, and after opening up to them I felt a million times better. Now I would like to further open myself up and feel more comfortable about telling my peers about romance.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-01-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: It's not okay to ask for advice about a potential love interest from another friend.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/19ato86/cmv_its_not_okay_to_ask_for_advice_about_a/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kiqhxtr",
                    "author": "FlyingNFireType",
                    "body": "I don't think her friend leaking information is a bad thing. One it prepares her for what is coming so there's less chance at a deer in the headlight moments and if you are really anxious/social awkward you're likely to fuck up your communication anyways and her friend can communicate it more clearly and give you more room for error and your initial attempt. Also people like people who they know like them more but that's not pure instant they need to process the information that the person likes them. All in all if the info got leaked you'd have a better chance.",
                    "date": "2024-01-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "19ato86"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1atw99p",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                "date": "2024-02-18",
                "score": 0,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kr05a3b",
                "author": "quantum_dan",
                "body": "Equality, or more generally arrangements with equal liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and with other tradeoffs required to be to everyone's benefit, gives everyone good reason to participate in the social contract.\n\nIf someone is being screwed by the structure of society, they have little incentive to participate peacefully, and have to be held down with violence or the threat of violence.  In purely pragmatic/amoral terms, that's costly, unstable, and dangerous to all involved; your society has to be structured to prevent a slave revolt or the equivalent, which expends resources that could otherwise be used to improve quality of life.  And even with broadly successful suppression, there's always the risk of one-off violence or a damaging, if not successful, revolt.\n\nThat aside, fair equality of opportunity grants access to everyone's potential contributions, since there's no known way to perfectly assess that without letting people give it a shot.  We've seen how much better off we are in the last few centuries with scientific and technological advancement, and maximizing the odds that talent, wherever it's found, can be applied to further advancement is to everyone's benefit.\n\nFinally, in a moral sense, human equality is easily justified (and this point has been made since antiquity) by reference to the fundamental characteristic of human agency.  Almost no one actually wants their worth to be evaluated by some particular talent, since almost everyone would then be unalterably well below the top by no fault of their own.  Human agency, on the other hand, is a shared characteristic across all humans who are healthy and developed enough to meaningfully participate in society.",
                "date": "2024-02-18",
                "score": 6,
                "parent_id": "1atw99p"
            },
            {
                "id": "kr0e57z",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "\u0394  I can see how  treating people equally can lead to everyone getting to achievetheir full potential, which is a good thing.",
                "date": "2024-02-18",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kr05a3b"
            },
            {
                "id": "kr0eazb",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/quantum_dan ([94\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/quantum_dan)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-02-18",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "kr0e57z"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzx73w",
                    "author": "Finch20",
                    "body": "So while you claim that equality cannot be justified without a god, you also concede that not all gods consider all humans equal?",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzxqbe",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "We don't need to appeal to any principle at all, we can just observe empirically that people are happier and societies are more stable and more prosperous when people are treated equally. If we want to build societies that are prosperous and happy, where people live long and peaceful lives, then available data suggests that equality is very good for that.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 71,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzy8t0",
                    "author": "Sad_Razzmatazzle",
                    "body": "What societies can you point to where this can be observed?",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kqzxqbe"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzxwxi",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": ">treat humans equally\n\nWhat does this, in specific, mean to you?\n\nBecause depending on what you mean I either agree very strongly or couldn't disagree more.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr0818q",
                    "author": "NY_Giants_0314",
                    "body": "That is a good question. \n\nDoes that mean that men can compete in women sports? \n\nAnd vice versa?",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kqzxwxi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzy213",
                    "author": "DeltaBlues82",
                    "body": "We treat each other equal because that\u2019s basic morality. Morals predate the invention of gods by millions of years. Even animals have basics morality.\n\nSome people don\u2019t need an omnipresent being to tell them not to behave like an asshole.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzydd6",
                    "author": "Sad_Razzmatazzle",
                    "body": "Many animals kill and eat the male who impregnated them.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "kqzy213"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzy33t",
                    "author": "Bodoblock",
                    "body": "Many animals have an innate biological sense of fairness, or an [aversion to inequity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequity_aversion_in_animals). Humans are one of those animals. It's an important factor in our ability to cooperate at a larger scale.\n\nIt also helps facilitate societal cohesion and function. Even today, many of our large social tensions stem from a sense of inequity. Unequal application of policing and the law. Unequal opportunities. Unequal wealth.\n\nIt breeds a lot of resentment, which in turn, can generate a lot of dysfunction. Overruling popular discontent over unfairness often looks like the form of extreme state violence and oppression. It is in the general interest of a broader public then to want to maintain or pursue equity the best they can, lest they fall into such situations.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr07pr3",
                    "author": "NY_Giants_0314",
                    "body": "Yes, humans do have an innate sense of fairness, but fairness does not equate to equality. \n\nAccording to Daniel Liberian, anthropologist at Harvard, that innate sense of fairness was an evolutionary byproduct of survival as Hunter and Gatherer societies needed to cooperate and share with the entire tribe for survival. \n\n[https://heb.fas.harvard.edu/people/daniel-e-lieberman](https://heb.fas.harvard.edu/people/daniel-e-lieberman)\n\nHowever, these tribes were not equal. There were inherent hierarchies in tribes, which lead to hierarchies in civilizations, including the pharos in Egypt. \n\nUnfairness does bred resentment in today's modern society because many times justice is missed for a long period of time. For example, there was much cultural resentment for Ex-congressman George Santos. Yet, after being expelled from congress and indicted, that resentment has waned because it seems that justice is being realized.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kqzy33t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzyzbj",
                    "author": "WULTKB90",
                    "body": "Humans are a social species, we evolved to need one another so we evolved to care about our fellow humans. Its really as simple as that, regardless of what you consider equality having everyone on the same or similar footing helps everyone else in society, a rising tide lifts all boats and all that.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr08oo0",
                    "author": "NY_Giants_0314",
                    "body": "We also evolve to mistrust one another, especially if we feel threaten on a physical, emotional, or psychological level.\n\nNeuroscientist David Rock created the SCARF Model for communication on the premise that we can easily be threaten by one another. [https://davidrock.net](https://davidrock.net)\n\nSo, is it fair that say that our desire to care about one another can easily be thwarted?",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kqzyzbj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzz42f",
                    "author": "TheManInTheShack",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t need a made up invisible friend to tell me what is right and what is wrong. That\u2019s what I have a conscious for. Human equality, giving everyone an equal chance to the degree possible, is simply being a reasonable, moral person.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzz5ua",
                    "author": "anonymous_teve",
                    "body": "If you want to strengthen this, instead of saying 'human equality', I might re-phrase as 'equality of human rights' or 'human dignity'. Human equality is too ambiguous, and if someone just is a nihilist and thinks nothing means anything... well that's equality too, but it doesn't lead to human dignity or human rights.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzzd7d",
                    "author": "Kamamura_CZ",
                    "body": "The cornerstone of a society based on equality is empathy as an evolutionary trait. There is absolutely nothing that science could explain or design better than any religion.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzzet1",
                    "author": "Cubusphere",
                    "body": "People are happier in more equal societies. Good outcomes are justification to do the thing that leads to that outcome. \n\nI don't believe in a higher power, yet I have a justification for acting morally. This seems to be impossible in your view. The fact that there are any moral atheists at all should change your view, unless you really believe they don't exist.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kqzzyoc",
                    "author": "NotMyBestMistake",
                    "body": "It's extremely easy to justify equality with zero reference to a deity.\n\nLet's start with a very pragmatic justification: it results in a safer society for everyone, including me. No one but the most arrogant idiot would ever believe that they are the pinnacle of humanity in any aspect, let alone all aspects. As such, equality means that my life is secured even if I'm not the best hockey player, country singer, banker, or soldier. Hell, I don't need to even be any of those things to enjoy life if equality exists.\n\nThen there's the idea that morals don't require a god and the only people who believe they do are people who have no actual morals. One of the great strengths of humanity is the ability to create a community and cooperate with each other; we'd be nothing if we kept to tightknit family units that murdered each other on sight. The capacity for empathy makes us strong, and that also leads us to understanding what fairness and equality are and that we dislike it when things aren't fair and equal. Hell, even people who ostensibly support inequality and unfairness typically do it out of their own twisted ignorance of the world rather than an actual rejection of the concepts.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr05jra",
                    "author": "UnderwatermelonEnjoy",
                    "body": "If anything, all our achievements are thanks to people not being treated equally. Meritocracy is what makes people want to improve, so they achieve a higher social status. If being a renowned biologist was treated the same as being working in fast food, people would just prefer dead end jobs that they can half ass",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "kqzzyoc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr002vq",
                    "author": "throwaway-fpga",
                    "body": "Locke started with a premise of Christian God's creation of humans in his image to say that people must be treated equally under the law because all humans are created in the image of God.  Like you're saying.  \n\nBut, Kant started with a set of secular premises and proved that, under those premises, one can't apply moral constraints differently to different people.\n\nTo prove any moral principle, you have to start with some premises.  Or, if someone instead wants to make a pragmatic argument, there needs to be premises of objectives for that.\n\nOne of those premises to justify that could be a God (or even a God based on a particular religious doctrine.  But, you can get to a similar place with other premises (such as starting with a premise that there is an objective moral system, like Kant).\n\nThere is a lot of focus on Greek philosphers because that's where a lot of moral philosophy started, but you can look at later work.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr00866",
                    "author": "Such-Lawyer2555",
                    "body": "The way I personally and subjectively treat people is certainly not equal, it is based on many factors.\n\n\nHowever the equality which matters is in the legislation, that someone will not be handled differently under the law because of their characteristics.\u00a0\n\n\nUnless the law is the higher power you speak of (I would say law is just an extension of human agreements) then no, no deity or similar force is needed.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr00ztj",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": ">I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally\n\nIf you are moral pragmatists and only care about material reasons, you should only consider merit and acts of people.\n\nEvery single person starts at the same base level (or zero level) and then can rise or fall depending how they act and what they do. It doesn't matter if you are black or gay or muslim or lizard person. They are all equal because their all valuation starts at the bottom. Now only thing that matter is what material or pragmatic actions they perform.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr028ud",
                    "author": "sophisticaden_",
                    "body": "I mean, I\u2019ll do the basic Rawls shit. \n\nYou\u2019ve been tasked with creating the ideal, moral society. You determine every aspect \u2014 how wealth is distributed, who\u2019s on top, if there is a top, how power manifests itself. \n\nAssume that you have no idea where you\u2019ll wind up in society; you\u2019re just as likely to wind up on the very bottom as on top. \n\nWould you design that society to be equitable or inequitable?\n\nThere\u2019s a super basic, completely secular, ethical justification for equity.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr04p7q",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "But we are all born into societies, we can\u2019t create  their own from scratch.\nSo what\u2019s the basis for treating someone Who is smarter than the average the same as everyone else,",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "kr028ud"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr02tar",
                    "author": "NY_Giants_0314",
                    "body": "What make you certain that any characteristics that you are measuring are only measured on a linear dimension? Why would these qualities, such as attractiveness, be measured within a matrix?\n\nWhen we use a matrix to measure characteristics and attributes, there is no longer a hierarchy, only coordinates within the matrix.\n\nTo illustrate what I mean, in a simple but readily used form of comparison of attractiveness, many people will describe another person's level of attractiveness with several parameters, e.g. physique, facial composition, personal style, charm, intelligence, wealth, ability, sexuality, and more.\n\nIn fact, many adolescents play the game that she/he is a 10 in looks, 8 in personality, 7 in physique. \n\nIn the end, it's a matrix and not a linear scale. Therefore, how can we establish equals in a matrix? More importantly, how can we treat people unequally if there is no clear hierarchy to measure with?",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr048ps",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "And yet, there are people in society who are smarter, more good-looking and wealthier than the average.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "kr02tar"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr03yv4",
                    "author": "woailyx",
                    "body": ">more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera,\n\nNone of those differences are an inherent justification for inequality under the law. \n\nYou can set up a system where people have equal opportunities, and the ones who are stronger, smarter, more attractive will take better advantage of those opportunities. You're still *treating* them equally, they're just succeeding differently on merit. \n\nAnd why wouldn't you want that? If you give people unequal opportunities, you're making it harder for some of them to succeed for arbitrary reasons. We're not better at predicting who will be successful than life is at sorting us, and each of our lives is built on the collective success of others. It makes logical sense to keep most systems as fair and meritocratic as we can, rather than holding back someone who might have been great at something.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr04ne3",
                    "author": "ZappSmithBrannigan",
                    "body": ">Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\n\nSeeing as how nobody has been ale to demonstrate that god exist, you're just making up a justification. We can do that to. \n\nAll humans are alive, and therefor deserve equal treatment. \n\nI can prove people are alive. You can not prove god exists, so my reason has a better basis than yours does",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr05ueh",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "So are dogs, cats, bacteria, flies et cetera.\nShould we treat them all as equal to humans.\nAny similarity you pick to justify equality between human beings is arbitrary.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kr04ne3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr04qya",
                    "author": "NegativeOptimism",
                    "body": "What do you think equality is? Do you just mean equality before the law?\n\nBecause essentially no society treats everyone the exact same way, but many believe that it's worth striving for in certain mechanisms of society like healthcare, education and law. When we talk about equality as a concept, it devolves into an argument about definition, because the understanding of the concept can range from universal equal treatment of every person in every way, to fairly unequal treatment across society except for key areas. \n\nSo is this view an argument against the former or the latter? The former has never/will never exist and the latter doesn't require a deity to be justified.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr056vi",
                    "author": "ObviousSea9223",
                    "body": "No. Human equality in the way it's usually meant is trivially easy to justify, philosophically, from a materialist viewpoint. You could take various value systems within that frame and end in the same place either a priori or with reference to modern evidence.\n\nIt takes reference to a(n evil) higher power to logically *deny* it.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr05tmu",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "Treating people equally leads to less suffering and more happiness. So it\u2019s justifiable in a utilitarian pov",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr05zsv",
                    "author": "Teddy_Funsisco",
                    "body": "Secularism is pretty cool, you should look into it.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr08ub4",
                    "author": "crazytumblweed999",
                    "body": "All human beings can feel suffering. \n\nSuffering is bad (undesirable).\n\nMost humans (the vast majority) feel empathy.\n\nNeither suffering nor empathy require a divine or moral source to exist  \n\nThrough human equity we can mitigate as much suffering as technology and resources allow.\n\nA world with less overall suffering is more productive and produces more/better (healthy, educated, longer lived, better lives) people. A world with more suffering produces the opposite. \n\nTherefore it is justifiable to the individual and to the whole to mitigate suffering via human equity as not only in their own best interests but in the overall best interest of the people who's suffering can be mitigated. \n\nNo god/gods/divine authority required.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr09xvx",
                    "author": "No_Astronaut2795",
                    "body": "Societies typically do have some type of god or gods but they all are to pass down rules, morals, explain death, rituals etc.. Do I think it's necessary to believe in a god to be a good a good citizen or treat everyone ethically? No. You're limiting complicated human emotions and behavior into believer or not and then seem to be saying that equals good or bad.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr0a2ba",
                    "author": "libra00",
                    "body": "Equality is not about ignoring the fact that some people are more attractive or better at poker or whatever, it's about treating everyone equally because regardless of what they're good at everyone is basically the same - a thinking, feeling human who is just as worthy of being treated with respect and dignity as everyone else - on the basis of the fact that everyone is equally capable of feeling pain, of suffering, of experiencing love or joy, the fact that we all have hopes and dreams, that we care for our loved ones, etc.  None of those basic facts are changed by being good at basketball or bad at driving or whatever.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr0bco5",
                    "author": "Danleburg",
                    "body": "I dont like it when people are treated worse because of their genetic or societal status so I think we should change it so that doesnt happen.\n\n\nThere, I justified human equality without referincing a god.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr0ctva",
                    "author": "Brainsonastick",
                    "body": "The concept of equality was never about our intelligence, attractiveness, strength, or anything like that. We all acknowledge some people are better at certain things than others.\n\nEquality just means that regardless of what traits you happen to be born with or develop, you are still deserving of the same basic rights as everyone else.\n\nSure, everything is easy to justify in a religious framework because you can just say \u201cGod says X\u201d and suddenly it\u2019s \u201cjustified\u201d.\n\nHowever, it\u2019s easy to justify in a secular framework as well. The idea of treating someone worse because of how they were born is pretty straightforwardly unjust.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr0f7zo",
                    "author": "Various_Succotash_79",
                    "body": ">Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all equal in the eyes of God\n\nBut the entire concept of women being inferior is supported by the Bible and other holy books, so gender equality cannot in any way be attributed to religion.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr0vkom",
                    "author": "dan_jeffers",
                    "body": "Empirically your premise doesn't hold up.\n\nThere are lots of religions and religious people who have hierarchical valuations of humans and some of the worst inequalities have found all the religious support they need.\n\nMany non-religious people, agnostics or atheists, have a strong belief in equality, at least in terms of rights and basic value. In fact, the whole Secular Humanist movement places equality and the respect of every individual very highly.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr10gd1",
                    "author": "aphroditex",
                    "body": "Genetically speaking, how much separates you from me? \n\nOn average, 0.1%. \n\nYes, that\u2019s a lot. But it\u2019s 1/999th the size of what is the same. \n\nWe\u2019re members of the same species. We don\u2019t even have as much variety, relatively speaking, as other species we recognize as distinct despite wider variances in body morphology.\n\nBeing of the same species is enough reason to recognize all humans as equally human.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr1jg2h",
                    "author": "CremasterReflex",
                    "body": "Perhaps there is no a priori justification for human equality, but one only needs to review history of the times and places where it was disregarded and denied. When human equality is not respected, you end up with torture, extrajudicial killings, apartheid,    mass graves, cattle cars, and gas chambers. \n\nThe only justification one needs to respect human equality is that not doing so results in murdered babies.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr1u8vo",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "Humans aren't equal, they're all slightly different, and those differences can be measured. Equality comes from equality under the law, which got rid of things like nobles and peasants being considered different types of people, and given different punishments for crime.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr1yyfg",
                    "author": "Radical_Libertarian",
                    "body": "Human inequality seems to be more often justified by religion politically compared to human equality.\n\nFor example, in the Bible, women are expected to obey their husbands, and children their parents.",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr3syt3",
                    "author": "FinneousPJ",
                    "body": "human equality cannot be justified with reference to a higher power\n\n\nSince higher power cannot be adequately justified",
                    "date": "2024-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr4w4uc",
                    "author": "RexRatio",
                    "body": ">human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power\n\nBeg to differ. The FACT we're all members of the same species as can and has been proven by genetics is compelling enough to conclude that all humans are equal.\n\nOn the other hand, the CLAIMS of religions that certain in-groups are more important than others, such as:\n\n* Christian denominations claiming that only those who accept Jesus Christ as their savior can be saved, implying that followers of other religions might be excluded from salvation.\n* The caste system of Hinduism has been a source of discrimination, where individuals are categorized into specific castes based on birth. \n* In Islam, sectarian divisions or discrimination against non-Muslims have been associated with claims of the superiority of certain in-groups.\n* Jews start their day thanking Yahweh they were made Jewish and not gentile.\n* etc.",
                    "date": "2024-02-19",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1atw99p",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " Considering the diversity of humans, some are more intelligent, attractive, stronger et cetera, I can\u2019t see any materialistic reason to treat humans equally., Religious people have the justification that God created all of humanity and so we are all  equal in the eyes of God, but I don\u2019t see where the justification to treat humans equally comes from within a materialistic worldview.\nPlato argues that things which are the same should be treated equally, and the ancient Greeks had a concept of equality before the law although this only applied to rich Greek citizens, and not women slaves or foreigners., CMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-18",
                    "score": 0,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: human equality cannot be justified without reference to a higher power",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1atw99p/cmv_human_equality_cannot_be_justified_without/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kr9clio",
                    "author": "ShardsOfSalt",
                    "body": "How people should behave is based on subjective opinions.  You can derive what actions to take that are objectively better than others from that but it is still based on subjectivity.  You should move out of the way of a bullet, if you don't want to die.  Similarly you should treat people equally if you have compassion.  There's other reasons too but they are also subjective.\n\nEven if you have a God it's still subjective.  There's no difference between \"God said you should treat people equally\" and \"I said you should treat people equally\" except that God might have a different penalty than I do for you not abiding by this rule.",
                    "date": "2024-02-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1atw99p"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1ax3iou",
                "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "krllpcy",
                "author": "Havenkeld",
                "body": "Making AI harmless with good policy is a nice idea but if you've seen congress tech hearings you know we can rule that out for the near future. The producers and developers of the technology should assume there will not be good policy for awhile in their ethical considerations.\n\nAdditionally, if the technology is widely available and trivial to use, enforcing laws on any case by case basis will be of minimal effect. We can expect it work about as well as trying to stop internet piracy did. \n\nSo I think appealing to good policy as a means to prevent abuse really just isn't a good defense here, as it can't be taken for granted. It also just doesn't fundamentally address whether we're better off with the technology in general. I'm not particularly concerned about it other than its use for political propaganda. \n\nIt's generally true that technologies can be used toward good or bad ends, but a case can be made that they are more useful for one or the other, and we can assess that with respect to a given context that conditions the likely uses. We should be considering our context, and not a hypothetical one where our lawmakers understand the tech industry at all.",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
            },
            {
                "id": "krlmjy3",
                "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                "body": "!delta \n\nI don\u2019t have any defense that bad actors will likely be able to get much farther with this technology in a non-art based environment",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "krllpcy"
            },
            {
                "id": "krlmn8e",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Havenkeld ([286\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Havenkeld)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "krlmjy3"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlbic0",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "I think you missed out completely on my biggest complaint: AI art is soulless garbage. It sucks. It isn't good and it's presence in media will rob me of enjoyment of that media\n\nLike, look at the soulsboune community, for example. There are people who obsessively pore over every detail, no matter how small, in those games because decoding the 'lore' of the games is really fun. The delight of discovering a missed connection or a hidden detail is unmatchable. But as soon as games like these start being made using AI, that goes away forever, right? Nobody will look at a texture of a gravestone in some forgotten corner of a game map again, because they will just assume that it has no meaning because it was made by an AI that inherently can't understand or give a shit about meaning. It just looks the way it does because that's the best the generator could do. Or worse, AI might generate things that appear to have story meaning, but don't, because they were made by an AI that didn't know the story - this has already happened with one game, *Stasis: Bone Totem,* and robbed a lot of people of appreciating that games story because background images that should have been story-relevant were just randomly generated by an AI.\n\nI'm also very interested in film because I like analyzing the staging, blocking, and cinematography of shots. I like to consider the choices made by the director. AI generated imagery will inherently never have this interest for me, and the existence of AI generated video will permanently rob me of some of the enjoyment of it, because why should I bother analyzing something that might have just been spat out by an algorithm?",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 35,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlc5i0",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "That's an interesting point, and largely boils down to significant vs insignificant detail. Ideally, all detail should be significant, but this is impractical and clearly not the case even in human made games, where maybe it's significant that the drapes are blue, or maybe they're just blue because it looked nice, and has no bearing on the story. In brief, complaining about this now is like complaining about the lack of story in The Arrival of a Train, that 1896 film of exactly what it sounds like. Which is to say, I expect AI films will be less creatively bankrupt than what's in theaters now within the decade because of the increased accessibility of filmmaking, and and the AI itself will be good enough to just quietly invent it's own meaning in things in 20-30 years.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "krlbic0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlbk8t",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "As a generally pro-AI person, there are two main problems with AI art: Firstly is the simple one, that it's creating a floor for professional artists, in that they have to be better then the AI, given the speed this floor is rising at, this will soon be a problem, largely because artists can't get any low level work, and thus few will get good enough to beat the AI. \n\nThe second problem is weirder. You know how before photography, all pictures were as potentially fictional as whatever someone said? We're back to that now, given that AI can render passable fakes of most photorealistic images, video, and audio. This is nothing new for images, audio recording however has always been factual unless you count manually imitating voices. Generally speaking, I don't think it's bad that people can now make passable photorealistic images of most things, but it is bad given what we've built on the idea of photo evidence, and we're going to have at least a bit of a crisis from the breakdown of that as a valid concept. \n\nI see two likely outcomes long term. The first is that video can be tied to a camera cryptographically, and this means you might have to submit your entire dashcam as evidence, it's still valid. \n\nThe second, more likely possibility, is that images, video, and audio become as malleable as text and speech, given that people further integrate into their computers, first through augmented reality, then directly through implants. It becomes entirely normal to imagine something, push that thought to your AI, which then renders it, and you send it to your friends. People likely become effectively telepathic through their implants, and the internet becomes a digital fog which lays over the real world, perfectly perceived by the augmented as they go about their daily life.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlcknv",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "I actually hadn\u2019t considered the second case but I think it is generally in line with my view that technology and policy can ensure good practice with AI and prevent bad actors from getting too much control",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlbk8t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlc2j9",
                    "author": "5Tenacious_Dee5",
                    "body": "I don't mind AI art.  AI is a tool.\n\nBut to think it doesn't have IP implications is just ignorant.  But I'm sure this can be mitigated, using AI ironically.  Just teach it the rules.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlcf86",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "I think you agree with me lol",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlc2j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlcytj",
                    "author": "jso__",
                    "body": "I think the key difference in AI art (in terms of IP, at least) is that it doesn't think. It doesn't look at art and consolidate it in a logical and thoughtful manner (as a human would do), it takes in art, combines it in a random manner which it's told is optimal, and spits out a product. By definition, everything which current AI models create are 100% derivative of existing works. They can't create new things.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krld5c5",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think that\u2019s actually true. In so far as making a composite is concerned I don\u2019t believe that\u2019s how diffusion models function but an open to learning more if that\u2019s the case.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlcytj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlgqxl",
                    "author": "KokonutMonkey",
                    "body": "What if I'm a teacher?\n\nIf my job is to instruct learners how to draw, paint, etc., it seems reasonable to reject AI generated submissions.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlhdxg",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "Yes, if a student is taking a class to learn how to paint and the submit an AI generated piece they should fail. Just like if I submit a French essay to my Arabic professor I would likely fail. Because both I and your hypothetical student are producing work that is not in line with what was asked of us",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "krlgqxl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlpcth",
                    "author": "jake_burger",
                    "body": "To make a camera you don\u2019t have to steal artist\u2019s paintings.\n\nIf AI needs training data and they are going to make money from it they should pay to use it like everyone else has to.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlq383",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "Adobe, Getty, and ShutterStock do. So you\u2019re okay with those models, yes?",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlpcth"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlr6uf",
                    "author": "Affectionate_Money34",
                    "body": "I think you misunderstood the AI is a collage.\n\nPrior to the current technique, we had a technique to create an apple by Leondaro that involved some simple mathematical concepts (distance to picture of apple, correlation to picture of Leonardo)\n\nThe current technique does better than the clear mathematical formulation, but don't cheat yourself, there is still a (complex) formulation.\n\nThe argument is that this complexity is significantly smaller than the human experience. As such, if there was never a drawing of Leonardo, AI would have not invented it, but by having AI do almost all of the art you will not get that picture as it will not be invented by humans.\n\nIs human ingenuity needed, and if so, how do we leave room for it?",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlrj85",
                    "author": "dbandroid",
                    "body": "Fundamentally, AI -generated images are not art and treating them as such is stupid.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlrmdk",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "You\u2019re not really engaging in good faith or actually answering anything that I posited",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlrj85"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krltrze",
                    "author": "Siukslinis_acc",
                    "body": "I think deep down it is an existential crysis.\n\n>You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that no-one is actually worried about AIs taking over the world or anything like that, no matter what they say. What they're really worried about is that someone might prove, once and for all, that consciousness can arise from matter. And I kind of understand why they find it so terrifying. If we can create a sentient being, where does that leave the soul? Without mystery, how can we see ourselves as anything other than machines? And if we are machines, what hope do we have that death is not the end?\n\n>What really scares people is not the artificial intelligence in the computer, but the \"natural\" intelligence they see in the mirror.\n\nWhen my friend and I talked about ai art one of their concerns was that they will not know if it was made by a human or not. Stuff being made by human is very important to them. They are making music and for them art is what makes one human. They do have a sort of an identity problem and I think art is making them feel human, so if art is no longer an unique human thing, they might lose their identity of being a human.\n\nWhile I am on a bit of a different philosophical mindset and don't see humans as being something unique and thus it doesn't bother me that the things we saw as uniquely human is no longer unique to humans. I don't care if I have a conversation with a human or an AI. Currently if I want a 100% human conversation, i go outside and interact irl with other humans.\n\nI remember people talking that art is an uniquely human thing. That art is what makes us human. So if a computer can do what is ascribed as uniquely human thing to do, then humans will no longer feel special.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlzyft",
                    "author": "VertigoOne",
                    "body": ">Only if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are\n\nSee, this is the issue.\n\nWhen people make art, they accept the natural possibility of this because of the nature of art. Art is meant to be viewed by humans, so by extension there is no meaningful way to say \"do not be inspired by my work to create your own\" etc. We accept that by putting your art out into the world, that is an inevitablity.\n\nNo one accepted that it was \"inevitable\" that the art would be fed into a generative AI art machine and used as a tool for a machine to make more art.\n\nYou cannot infer from the fact that \"People are inspired by art to make more art\" that therefore \"Art can be used as a model for a machine to make more art\".\n\nArtists did not consent to that.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krm3nc6",
                    "author": "deathbrusher",
                    "body": "I feel like AI art is much like taking credit for the meal when all you did was order from the menu.\n\nAI removes the human journey from art all in the cause of image generation.\n\nThe struggle and effort are the key aspects of why art is important because the process is what counts. AI removes it in favor of listening to what you're writing and virtually guessing what it should look like based upon art of which was fed to it, mostly involuntarily.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krnjzbm",
                    "author": "ExcitingPotatoes",
                    "body": "You make good points but I think what's missing is the perspective of non-commercial artists and what value art offers to a society beyond its commercial applications.\n\nOutside of a corporate or commercial context, AI art is solving a problem that doesn't exist -- art isn't something that *needs* to be optimized or automated. Great art works are considered great because they're an expression and reflection of the human experience and human intention. That experience is not something that an algorithm can have, no matter how technically proficient and precise its output may be. \n\nI have no doubt an AI could generate something that could fool most into thinking it was made by a human. But the question is, why would you want that? Making art, even if you aren't trying to make something great, can be a blast and the process of creation itself can be one of the most fulfilling experiences available to us as humans. Trying to make an AI do it \"better\" makes no sense. A robot could probably play video games better than us, but what would be the point? Just to watch the robot have fun for you?\n\n>For some reason artists are untouchable. \n\nWell, art *is* categorically different than something like truck driving, for example, because it's more than just a job for many. People generally don't drive big rigs for hours a day just for recreational purposes. But people with a passion for art want to do it regardless of whether they earn a paycheck because it's fulfilling and it's a healthy outlet. I think creating a cultural attitude where aspiring artists are told they don't need to learn anything other than how to enter prompts into an AI effectively takes away the joy of creation.\n\nThe only reasonable purpose I could see for this kind of technology is in the corporate world or advertising, like stock images or web page backgrounds for example, or in upscaling old media.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krpvd83",
                    "author": "atxarchitect91",
                    "body": "AI will be a tool just like everything else but your defense of it seems more like you like using it and disparage people with the actual talent and don\u2019t find them of value or understand art all that much. It is a degradation of culture by any estimation and your defense of it doesn\u2019t understand how it will inevitably lead to people like yourself who over value technology in lieu of actual human-based skills and hard work.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kso201q",
                    "author": "zk_shadow",
                    "body": "Former software engineer here chiming in! ChatGPT has definitely changed my workflow quite a LOT (to the point that probably 60-70% of my code is machine generated). That's definitely also true on the image side of things with tools like Dall-E and Midjourney.\n\nShameless plug -- when my co-founder and I left our jobs several months ago, one of the areas we started exploring was adding a collaboration component (we used to work for a Notion competitor) to AI image generation. \n\nOne of the things we're adding in the next couple weeks is the ability for artists/creatives to monetize their own style (so artists would upload their own images that we can finetune our models with), and then monetize any images generated by models finetuned with the artists' own data.\n\nCurious if there's any interest? We're at [Shadow](https://www.withshadow.ai) & currently in our early days (in beta) and giving early users free credits. Please drop me a DM if you want to learn more or give feedback!",
                    "date": "2024-02-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1ax3iou",
                "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "krlrxa1",
                "author": "ralph-j",
                "body": "> The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nThose are not the only reasons for opposing the use of AI art. There are also indirect negative effects, especially due to the scale and ease at which AI operates, and the lack of efforts required:\n\n* It desensitizes people and removes the awe/wow factor that used to be typical for human-created art and media.\n* It makes everyone cynical and suspicious of artists and publishers. Whenever someone takes a picture of some super vibrant scene, or showcases their hard work as a graphic artist, everyone now asks *is this AI?* Or worse: *this must be AI!*\n* It gives wrongdoers even more plausible deniability: *that evidence against me must be manufactured using AI!*\n\nI agree that these are not enough to outlaw it, but they are valid concerns and not \"based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage\".",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 20,
                "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
            },
            {
                "id": "krls1g0",
                "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                "body": "!delta\n\nYou are absolutely correct that those are completely valid reasons to dislike AI Art",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": "krlrxa1"
            },
            {
                "id": "krls535",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ralph-j ([482\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ralph-j)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-02-22",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "krls1g0"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlbic0",
                    "author": "MercurianAspirations",
                    "body": "I think you missed out completely on my biggest complaint: AI art is soulless garbage. It sucks. It isn't good and it's presence in media will rob me of enjoyment of that media\n\nLike, look at the soulsboune community, for example. There are people who obsessively pore over every detail, no matter how small, in those games because decoding the 'lore' of the games is really fun. The delight of discovering a missed connection or a hidden detail is unmatchable. But as soon as games like these start being made using AI, that goes away forever, right? Nobody will look at a texture of a gravestone in some forgotten corner of a game map again, because they will just assume that it has no meaning because it was made by an AI that inherently can't understand or give a shit about meaning. It just looks the way it does because that's the best the generator could do. Or worse, AI might generate things that appear to have story meaning, but don't, because they were made by an AI that didn't know the story - this has already happened with one game, *Stasis: Bone Totem,* and robbed a lot of people of appreciating that games story because background images that should have been story-relevant were just randomly generated by an AI.\n\nI'm also very interested in film because I like analyzing the staging, blocking, and cinematography of shots. I like to consider the choices made by the director. AI generated imagery will inherently never have this interest for me, and the existence of AI generated video will permanently rob me of some of the enjoyment of it, because why should I bother analyzing something that might have just been spat out by an algorithm?",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 35,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlc5i0",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "That's an interesting point, and largely boils down to significant vs insignificant detail. Ideally, all detail should be significant, but this is impractical and clearly not the case even in human made games, where maybe it's significant that the drapes are blue, or maybe they're just blue because it looked nice, and has no bearing on the story. In brief, complaining about this now is like complaining about the lack of story in The Arrival of a Train, that 1896 film of exactly what it sounds like. Which is to say, I expect AI films will be less creatively bankrupt than what's in theaters now within the decade because of the increased accessibility of filmmaking, and and the AI itself will be good enough to just quietly invent it's own meaning in things in 20-30 years.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "krlbic0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlbk8t",
                    "author": "Green__lightning",
                    "body": "As a generally pro-AI person, there are two main problems with AI art: Firstly is the simple one, that it's creating a floor for professional artists, in that they have to be better then the AI, given the speed this floor is rising at, this will soon be a problem, largely because artists can't get any low level work, and thus few will get good enough to beat the AI. \n\nThe second problem is weirder. You know how before photography, all pictures were as potentially fictional as whatever someone said? We're back to that now, given that AI can render passable fakes of most photorealistic images, video, and audio. This is nothing new for images, audio recording however has always been factual unless you count manually imitating voices. Generally speaking, I don't think it's bad that people can now make passable photorealistic images of most things, but it is bad given what we've built on the idea of photo evidence, and we're going to have at least a bit of a crisis from the breakdown of that as a valid concept. \n\nI see two likely outcomes long term. The first is that video can be tied to a camera cryptographically, and this means you might have to submit your entire dashcam as evidence, it's still valid. \n\nThe second, more likely possibility, is that images, video, and audio become as malleable as text and speech, given that people further integrate into their computers, first through augmented reality, then directly through implants. It becomes entirely normal to imagine something, push that thought to your AI, which then renders it, and you send it to your friends. People likely become effectively telepathic through their implants, and the internet becomes a digital fog which lays over the real world, perfectly perceived by the augmented as they go about their daily life.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlcknv",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "I actually hadn\u2019t considered the second case but I think it is generally in line with my view that technology and policy can ensure good practice with AI and prevent bad actors from getting too much control",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlbk8t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlc2j9",
                    "author": "5Tenacious_Dee5",
                    "body": "I don't mind AI art.  AI is a tool.\n\nBut to think it doesn't have IP implications is just ignorant.  But I'm sure this can be mitigated, using AI ironically.  Just teach it the rules.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlcf86",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "I think you agree with me lol",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlc2j9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlcytj",
                    "author": "jso__",
                    "body": "I think the key difference in AI art (in terms of IP, at least) is that it doesn't think. It doesn't look at art and consolidate it in a logical and thoughtful manner (as a human would do), it takes in art, combines it in a random manner which it's told is optimal, and spits out a product. By definition, everything which current AI models create are 100% derivative of existing works. They can't create new things.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krld5c5",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t think that\u2019s actually true. In so far as making a composite is concerned I don\u2019t believe that\u2019s how diffusion models function but an open to learning more if that\u2019s the case.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlcytj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlgqxl",
                    "author": "KokonutMonkey",
                    "body": "What if I'm a teacher?\n\nIf my job is to instruct learners how to draw, paint, etc., it seems reasonable to reject AI generated submissions.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlhdxg",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "Yes, if a student is taking a class to learn how to paint and the submit an AI generated piece they should fail. Just like if I submit a French essay to my Arabic professor I would likely fail. Because both I and your hypothetical student are producing work that is not in line with what was asked of us",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "krlgqxl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlpcth",
                    "author": "jake_burger",
                    "body": "To make a camera you don\u2019t have to steal artist\u2019s paintings.\n\nIf AI needs training data and they are going to make money from it they should pay to use it like everyone else has to.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlq383",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "Adobe, Getty, and ShutterStock do. So you\u2019re okay with those models, yes?",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlpcth"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlr6uf",
                    "author": "Affectionate_Money34",
                    "body": "I think you misunderstood the AI is a collage.\n\nPrior to the current technique, we had a technique to create an apple by Leondaro that involved some simple mathematical concepts (distance to picture of apple, correlation to picture of Leonardo)\n\nThe current technique does better than the clear mathematical formulation, but don't cheat yourself, there is still a (complex) formulation.\n\nThe argument is that this complexity is significantly smaller than the human experience. As such, if there was never a drawing of Leonardo, AI would have not invented it, but by having AI do almost all of the art you will not get that picture as it will not be invented by humans.\n\nIs human ingenuity needed, and if so, how do we leave room for it?",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlrj85",
                    "author": "dbandroid",
                    "body": "Fundamentally, AI -generated images are not art and treating them as such is stupid.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlrmdk",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "You\u2019re not really engaging in good faith or actually answering anything that I posited",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "krlrj85"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krltrze",
                    "author": "Siukslinis_acc",
                    "body": "I think deep down it is an existential crysis.\n\n>You know, the more I think about it, the more I believe that no-one is actually worried about AIs taking over the world or anything like that, no matter what they say. What they're really worried about is that someone might prove, once and for all, that consciousness can arise from matter. And I kind of understand why they find it so terrifying. If we can create a sentient being, where does that leave the soul? Without mystery, how can we see ourselves as anything other than machines? And if we are machines, what hope do we have that death is not the end?\n\n>What really scares people is not the artificial intelligence in the computer, but the \"natural\" intelligence they see in the mirror.\n\nWhen my friend and I talked about ai art one of their concerns was that they will not know if it was made by a human or not. Stuff being made by human is very important to them. They are making music and for them art is what makes one human. They do have a sort of an identity problem and I think art is making them feel human, so if art is no longer an unique human thing, they might lose their identity of being a human.\n\nWhile I am on a bit of a different philosophical mindset and don't see humans as being something unique and thus it doesn't bother me that the things we saw as uniquely human is no longer unique to humans. I don't care if I have a conversation with a human or an AI. Currently if I want a 100% human conversation, i go outside and interact irl with other humans.\n\nI remember people talking that art is an uniquely human thing. That art is what makes us human. So if a computer can do what is ascribed as uniquely human thing to do, then humans will no longer feel special.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krlzyft",
                    "author": "VertigoOne",
                    "body": ">Only if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are\n\nSee, this is the issue.\n\nWhen people make art, they accept the natural possibility of this because of the nature of art. Art is meant to be viewed by humans, so by extension there is no meaningful way to say \"do not be inspired by my work to create your own\" etc. We accept that by putting your art out into the world, that is an inevitablity.\n\nNo one accepted that it was \"inevitable\" that the art would be fed into a generative AI art machine and used as a tool for a machine to make more art.\n\nYou cannot infer from the fact that \"People are inspired by art to make more art\" that therefore \"Art can be used as a model for a machine to make more art\".\n\nArtists did not consent to that.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krm3nc6",
                    "author": "deathbrusher",
                    "body": "I feel like AI art is much like taking credit for the meal when all you did was order from the menu.\n\nAI removes the human journey from art all in the cause of image generation.\n\nThe struggle and effort are the key aspects of why art is important because the process is what counts. AI removes it in favor of listening to what you're writing and virtually guessing what it should look like based upon art of which was fed to it, mostly involuntarily.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krnjzbm",
                    "author": "ExcitingPotatoes",
                    "body": "You make good points but I think what's missing is the perspective of non-commercial artists and what value art offers to a society beyond its commercial applications.\n\nOutside of a corporate or commercial context, AI art is solving a problem that doesn't exist -- art isn't something that *needs* to be optimized or automated. Great art works are considered great because they're an expression and reflection of the human experience and human intention. That experience is not something that an algorithm can have, no matter how technically proficient and precise its output may be. \n\nI have no doubt an AI could generate something that could fool most into thinking it was made by a human. But the question is, why would you want that? Making art, even if you aren't trying to make something great, can be a blast and the process of creation itself can be one of the most fulfilling experiences available to us as humans. Trying to make an AI do it \"better\" makes no sense. A robot could probably play video games better than us, but what would be the point? Just to watch the robot have fun for you?\n\n>For some reason artists are untouchable. \n\nWell, art *is* categorically different than something like truck driving, for example, because it's more than just a job for many. People generally don't drive big rigs for hours a day just for recreational purposes. But people with a passion for art want to do it regardless of whether they earn a paycheck because it's fulfilling and it's a healthy outlet. I think creating a cultural attitude where aspiring artists are told they don't need to learn anything other than how to enter prompts into an AI effectively takes away the joy of creation.\n\nThe only reasonable purpose I could see for this kind of technology is in the corporate world or advertising, like stock images or web page backgrounds for example, or in upscaling old media.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "krpvd83",
                    "author": "atxarchitect91",
                    "body": "AI will be a tool just like everything else but your defense of it seems more like you like using it and disparage people with the actual talent and don\u2019t find them of value or understand art all that much. It is a degradation of culture by any estimation and your defense of it doesn\u2019t understand how it will inevitably lead to people like yourself who over value technology in lieu of actual human-based skills and hard work.",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1ax3iou",
                    "author": "Hamza78ch11",
                    "body": "\nLast years was incredible for the advancement of technology via the creation and public release of LLMs (like  ChatGPT) and diffusion models like DALL-e, Stable Diffusion, and Midjourney. \nThe release of ChatGPT has widely been met with acclaim and support and while there are very valid criticisms - it seems that LLMs are very palatable to people in a way that the art models were not. However, even before then AI continues to advance steadily. We are getting closer to self driving cars, AI is increasingly being used in medicine, in biology, chemistry, and programming without the moral objections that come with its use in the arts. The opposition to AI Art is founded in not understanding the technology, fear of misuse, and inconsistent moral policing or fear of unemployment and future career prospects. \n\nEssentially, immediately after release the art community was on the defensive about the images generated by these models. Many people voiced moral objections that AI art is \u201cstealing\u201d or that what the model was doing was simply putting together a collage of other artists work. That what it was doing was not \u201creal art.\u201d Most of the people who object to it fundamentally do not understand how it works. \nThe other most common arguments revolve around moral inconsistency or simply holding art to a standard that is inconsistent.\n\n1) AI art is a collage of other pictures \n\nIt isn\u2019t. This one is not even a tiny bit true. Diffusion models work by a neural network wherein the network is trained to recognize that a certain tag has a certain value and attempts to recreate that Diffusion models are a type of generative model that create data similar to the data they were trained on. They do this by gradually adding Gaussian noise to training data, then learning to recover the data by going in the opposite direction. You give it 100 pictures of an apple and then ask it to make a picture of an apple and it gives you a green spherical blob and you say \u201cthis is not an apple\u201d and continue forwards until it can pretty confidently give you an apple most of the time. You do this with thousands of concepts until it can pretty convincingly come up with an apple as drawn by Leonardo Davinci on his lunch break. At no point did Leonardo draw an apple and there are no other images for it to stick together. The image is the first of its kind and has not existed prior to this. \n\nBut let\u2019s assume for a moment that it is actually just a collage. Collage is a recognized art form and thus either what the model made is art or collage isn\u2019t.\n\n2) AI steals artists work \n\nOnly if you believe that you are stealing when you look at someone\u2019s work and attempt to get better at it by imitating their style at home and having someone constantly critique how close you are. Since style cannot be considered intellectual property this argument is likely proposing one of two things: (1) either the AI is using actual pieces of someone\u2019s work (or is close enough that it could be considered theft) which is not what should be happening given the training and if it is we can fairly admit that this is a problem. (2) the AI retains artist work to use, which we know that it doesn\u2019t as once training is complete it is using only itself. Regardless, surgeons aren\u2019t marching in the street because robots are being trained on their images or surgeries. Programmers haven\u2019t unionized to block AI development or refuse to paste their code to GitHub out of fear of AI taking their job. Programmers aren\u2019t writing \u201cpoisoned code\u201d to make sure that anything they develop is unusable by data scraping in the future. \n\nBut let\u2019s say that this is theft. Using art to learn is theft because the artists did not consent to it. I have never seen an AI art opponent direct people to avoid SD, DALLE, MJ and to instead use Adobe or ShutterStock or Getty. Despite the fact that these sources used their own proprietary images and pay their artists. The second that an ethical source of AI images is found the goalpost is moved to \u201cNo AI art ever\u201d despite the images now being \u201cethically sourced\u201d\n\n3) Artists are losing their jobs \n\nYes. This sucks. Just like the combine harvester made many farmhands suddenly unemployed, just like a he printing press made individual scribes no longer necessary, low skill art has now been replaced. If the entirety of your art skill was making doodles and the company now has a machine that doodles at 100x the efficiency even with an objectively worse product then your job is going the way of the dodo. The highest level of skill for artists will always remain in demand and companies will continue to need artists to edit/refine/improve the AIs content but increasingly less. But the people who cry out against this have zero moral objection to the idea that truck drivers are soon going to be replaced. They have no complaints that surgery could very soon be done better by a robot. They don\u2019t mind at all that a computer can likely calculate your taxes better than an accountant very soon. The people who object see truck drivers, doctors, and accountants as disposable but not artists. For some reason artists are untouchable. For some reason art is sacred. I find it morally reprehensible that people that are anti-AI are okay with AI replacing manual labor or essentially any other job except their domain. Art isn\u2019t special, it\u2019s not holy, it isn\u2019t sacred. It is a skilled labor just like any other. And just like any skilled labor the democratization of that labor will displace those at the lowest skill levels. That\u2019s not wrong or bad or evil. It means that those people now have to pursue other means of survival and that\u2019s okay. Maybe their art can be better, maybe they can find a niche that suits them with specific clients, or maybe they can expand outwards and discover entirely new forms of art that do not require a corporate sponsor to perform. If anyone can now make an okay landscape in a few keystrokes doesn\u2019t that mean that you can now make landscapes purely for love or enjoyment? Why should the entire world hold itself back for your career when you wouldn\u2019t do the same for anyone else\u2019s? \n\nAnd it\u2019s frankly dumb to hold back a technology only because it harms your career prospects. Otherwise, let\u2019s bring lamplighters and stone throwers back so we can wake up to get to work because machines shouldn\u2019t be waking people up \n\n4) AI art can create objectionable things \n\nYes. With how quickly AI is evolving, very quickly you\u2019ll be able to create a video of president trump and Biden taking turns punching a small child. This is is horrible. It\u2019s is also something technology is 100% capable of doing right now. It\u2019s actually something technology was capable of back in 1902 or even earlier. It\u2019s easier now. So we should advocate for policy that all AI images should have markers that identify them as AI. But attempting to stop this technology will only force it underground where much less savory types will have free run. Making AI harmless with good policy is much better than shutting it down In a Butlerian Jihad. \n \n\nThe camera democratized image creation. It did not make painting obsolete, it simply added another medium to create. The mobile phone democratized the camera and did not make photographers obsolete. AI art has only further increased the ease of access to art. Previously unskilled people can now bring their thoughts and feelings to life in a way they previously could not. It will not make artists obsolete - it will simply give them one more tool",
                    "date": "2024-02-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: AI art is inevitable and opposition to it is based on selfishness or misplaced moral outrage",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1ax3iou/cmv_ai_art_is_inevitable_and_opposition_to_it_is/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kso201q",
                    "author": "zk_shadow",
                    "body": "Former software engineer here chiming in! ChatGPT has definitely changed my workflow quite a LOT (to the point that probably 60-70% of my code is machine generated). That's definitely also true on the image side of things with tools like Dall-E and Midjourney.\n\nShameless plug -- when my co-founder and I left our jobs several months ago, one of the areas we started exploring was adding a collaboration component (we used to work for a Notion competitor) to AI image generation. \n\nOne of the things we're adding in the next couple weeks is the ability for artists/creatives to monetize their own style (so artists would upload their own images that we can finetune our models with), and then monetize any images generated by models finetuned with the artists' own data.\n\nCurious if there's any interest? We're at [Shadow](https://www.withshadow.ai) & currently in our early days (in beta) and giving early users free credits. Please drop me a DM if you want to learn more or give feedback!",
                    "date": "2024-02-29",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1ax3iou"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1b0i14h",
                "author": "garaile64",
                "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                "date": "2024-02-26",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "ks7yyh1",
                "author": "JustDeetjies",
                "body": "Uhm. Europe IS diverse??? Not just racially (through centuries of immigration and slavery for some) but also culturally??\n\nLike, those are multiple different cultures and national AND regional identities and being what we consider \u201cwhite\u201d not does not make them homogenous. \n\nIn fact, if you look at the xenophobia present in the UK for example, there is significant xenophobia against Eastern Europeans who would also be considered white now.\n\nA lot of the bigotry seen in many places is more closely tied to social factors such as economic status, sociopolitical factors and how various cultures and people are represented in media as opposed to some inherent or \u201cnatural\u201d dislike of others. \n\nFurthermore many African nations have various cultures, ethnicities and religions within one nation and most do not have violence or hatred for those different peoples - unless it is tied to systemic treatment and oppression (usually division created by the colonialists such as the Hutus and Tutsis).\n\nFinally many \u201chomogenous\u201d nations have some serious issues around a plummeting and unsustainable birth rate, some have high rates of suicide and stagnant economies. Such as Japan and South Korea. \n\nSo there isn\u2019t even evidence that homogeny guarantees a stable and happy society.",
                "date": "2024-02-26",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
            },
            {
                "id": "ks83pmm",
                "author": "garaile64",
                "body": "1- **Europe** is diverse. The individual countries are relatively homogeneous. There are exceptions like Belgium and Switzerland, but, for example, almost everyone in Poland is ethnically Polish and almost everyone in Slovenia is ethnically Slovene.\n\n2- I thought that colonizers only intensified the divide between Hutus and Tutsis instead of creating it.\n\n3- I'm pretty sure that Japan's and South Korea's suicide rates are mostly because of the overbearing work culture and other factors. But I understand if their cultural homogeneity contributes to their stagnation, especially for Japan, as it could force them to keep some outdated methods just because they are traditional. !delta",
                "date": "2024-02-26",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ks7yyh1"
            },
            {
                "id": "ks83t3o",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/JustDeetjies ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/JustDeetjies)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-02-26",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ks83pmm"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7uxdp",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": ">have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over\u00a0**anything**.\n\nBut really think about this. Like think hard. Kids bully each other over anything. They don't bully because of ethnicity or gender or religion or race. They bully each other over anything. Literally anything. It's means they are not bigots or discriminatory. They pick any (literally any) trait and bully person over it. But if other person have that trait, they don't bully them because of it. They can be best friends with a red head but bully some other kid because they have red hair.\n\nBut adults are different. They generalize. All red heads should be bullied. All people from other countries should be shun. Adults are bigots. Kids accept anyone to play with them and even if they are stupid and bully each other over anything, they don't generalize.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 11,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7v08o",
                    "author": "destro23",
                    "body": ">Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity.\n\nMy next door neighbor is a Muslim from Iraq who is married to an Irish-American lady. My across the street neighbor is Mexican. I am white, while my wife is black. We just got together to watch the SAG awards and good times were had by all. I've lived with diversity my entire life no problems. \n\n>I don't see why diversity is good.\n\n[Why Diversity and Inclusion Are Good for Business](https://online.uncp.edu/degrees/business/mba/general/diversity-and-inclusion-good-for-business/)\n\n[The Other Diversity Dividend - We know that varied teams make better decisions. A new study shows they also make better investments. ](https://hbr.org/2018/07/the-other-diversity-dividend)\n\n[Science benefits from diversity](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05326-3)\n\n[The Benefits of Inclusion and Diversity in the Classroom](https://soeonline.american.edu/blog/benefits-of-inclusion-and-diversity-in-the-classroom/)\n\n[People in more racially diverse neighborhoods are more prosocial.](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-13651-001)",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 25,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7zy8i",
                    "author": "Bandage-Bob",
                    "body": "I am whiter than a Canadian winter and my fiancee is Korean.\n\nEach of us having a different cultural background allows us to have unique approaches and solutions to problems that neither of us would have come up with on our own.\n\nIt is one of the strongest aspects of our relationship.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ks7v08o"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7v5k8",
                    "author": "Such-Lawyer2555",
                    "body": "Diversity makes sense at every level, from low, where genetic diversity works to avoid genetic anomalies, to large scale society where diversity of thought allows many perspectives to work together to solve huge problems.\n\n\nHomogeny is not natural, it is enforced. Some insects are homogenous, some single celled organisms.\u00a0\n\n\nI don't want that for my life.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7wbzs",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "*Some* humans have difficulties dealing with people who are different than themselves. I argue the vast majority of people have no difficulty interacting with those who differ. This is a condition that is rooted in ignorance and luckily ignorance is a condition with both treatments and cures.\n\nWe already have the working solutions in front of us. What we lack is the motivation, especially among those who are resistant to diversity. \n\nThe interesting part to me is that you mention kids. It does start with children.\n\n1. Expose children to a high degree of diversity early and continue to do so often. \n2. Travel as far as one's budget allows. \n3. Make tertiary education generally taxpayer subsidized, especially for people of low socioeconomic status. \n4. Foster a culture which encourages leaving one's comfort zones.\n\nEach of these measures goes a long way in ensuring people learn to live with each other. Most importantly, together, they show that people are pretty much the same everywhere despite vast differences. \n\nOf course this is easier said than done because that initial group we're discussing is actively opposed to pretty much all of these measures.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7z58y",
                    "author": "dot_dot_beep",
                    "body": ">Some  \n>  \n> humans have difficulties dealing with people who are different than themselves. \n\nAt this point, it should be a psychological disorder in the DSM.  They're not capable of functioning in modern society, and are therefore psychologically dysfunctional.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "ks7wbzs"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7wcim",
                    "author": "T_Lawliet",
                    "body": "Let's take this maxim to its extreme: what if there was no diversity in humanity at all? What if everyone acted, looked and thought the same way? People would probably wouldn't be fighting each other all the time, sure, but they probably wouldn't have much of a reason to interact with each other much to begin with. \n\nDiversity means having people who think, act and behave differently. Sometimes this is due to biological reasons, like gender or simple DNA. But sometime it just means that diversity allows you to have different experiences, and that adds up to different skills, capabilities and perspectives. But why is this so important?\n\nWell, humans are social for a reason. We work best together. We come up with our greatest ideas together. And diversity is a huge part of that success, not just in humanity, but in evolution in general. [Natural selection](https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html#:~:text=Natural%20selection%20is%20a%20mechanism,change%20and%20diverge%20over%20time) is just nature's way of expressing this principle. That's cause if you have people with diverse abilities, the group in general is capable of doing more and being more imaginative. Specialization is what allows complex societies to exist to begin with. \n\nWhy do you think dictators try their best to isolate and lock up their borders? Why do you think cult leaders try their best to isolate their members? Because diversity brings *change.* And while, yes, change has brought horrors onto humanity, its has brought far more benefits. And any benefit we can lay claim to is because people are different.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7xqfk",
                    "author": "Ok_Size_9378",
                    "body": "You're correct but at the same time you're only looking for examples that confirm your view. E.g. I could see the Roman world through the lens of the many Civil wars and collapse but does that erase the experiences of the hundreds of millions who lived within it as a stable and diverse entity? \n\nDepending on how you want to count, billions today live in inhomogenous countries peacefully, and don't forget it was not many years ago that nations like Germany, Japan and Korea were not exactly bastions of peace and stability! Somalia today is vastly more unstable than India and so on.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7z2te",
                    "author": "chitterychimcharu",
                    "body": "I could replace the word diversity in your title with technology. Replace the text of your post with the horrors of industrial warfare and the logic of your argument would run exactly the same.\n\nDiversity is juice worth the squeeze. I'll allow that living in big diverse societies is not our natural mode but neither is shitting indoors or surviving a birth coming in breech position.\n\nTo hit a little towards your broader point about segregated societies being somewhat desirable I'll bring some scholarly info.\n\n\"Residents living among high proportions of out-group where the groups are integrated report an improvement in out-group attitudes. It is only residents living among large out-group populations where groups are more segregated from one another\u2014at the nexus of high minority share and high segregation\u2014who report colder out-group attitudes.\"\n\nhttps://academic.oup.com/sf/article/97/3/1029/5074547\n\nIt's an admittedly small evidence given the scope of my conclusion, diversity is a net positive, but seemed on theme for the post",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7zs90",
                    "author": "ProDavid_",
                    "body": "Malaysia: barely holds the majority of the population being Malay.\n\n>50.1% of the population are Malay, 22.6% are Chinese, 11.8% are indigenous Bumiputra groups other than the Malays, 6.7% are Indian, and other groups account for 0.7%.\n\nthere are mosques with *very* strong m/f segregation, side to side with hindu temples and catholic churches. as long as a woman doesnt \"demand\" to sight-see the male section of a mosque i havent experienced any other issues.\n\ngranted the regime is quite authoritarian, and heavily influenced by islam and conservative thinking, but the people themselves are very tolerant. i believe they have 3 official languages, with many dialects in between.\n\nthe biggest inequality is income, with chinese being 60% of the top 1%, but thats more a sign of chinese dominance in asia and less of intolerance.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks7zstv",
                    "author": "fkiceshower",
                    "body": "Diversity in the fundamental mathematical sense is a risk management strategy. In investing, there is a tool called the efficient frontier, which aims to ideally balance the returns with risk through diversification. In essence, it is a data distribution not too unlike the bell curve we see in many different sets of data. \n\n Deciding the ideal multidimensional macro diversity levels is likely a computational impossibility, however, it's not outlandish to assume that the data is distributed in a similar structure. This means we can draw some conclusions, such as smaller diversity levels being more efficient at delivering the beneficial aspects of diversity than higher diversity levels.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks805j9",
                    "author": "Supergold_Soul",
                    "body": "Diversity is unavoidable. People will find ways to differentiate so as to place themselves higher in the supposed hierarchy. The conflicts that you speak about are less about the actual diversity present and more about the human desire to feel superior to the next person. You noted that even when there is forced conformity, (school uniforms) the same behavior presents itself. Diversity is not the cause of the conflict, the human ego is.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks80ku9",
                    "author": "Eli-Had-A-Book-",
                    "body": "To clarify, in short are you saying because some people fight among others due to them being different, diversity isn\u2019t good?",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks82zaj",
                    "author": "decrpt",
                    "body": "Yeah, this is a really ridiculous post. Because racism exists, racism is good and diversity is bad?",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ks80ku9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b0i14h",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Human diversity: different races, ethnic groups, sexual orientations, genders, religions... I had to be quite specific in the title because folks here often go just for the title.\n\nYugoslavia: that country was like a shirt owned by a person who had gained a lot of weight and Tito was the one button still keeping the shirt together. Tito's death was immediately followed by ethnic conflicts. If a country needs a dictatorship for people not to kill each other, these people are better off as separate countries.\n\nAfrica: some of the shitshow that happened on the continent since the departure of the colonizers is because these new countries' borders were deliberately made disregarding ethnic borders so the countries would have a hard time being their own thing. A country needs a common attribute for its populace to unite. It's easy for a more ethnically homogeneous country like Iceland or Slovenia, but harder for a more diverse country. Even diverse countries have one thing in common to create unity (Islam in Pakistan, vague ideals of freedom in the United States, whatever unites Canada, among others). However, the damage is already done, remaking the borders to match ethnic borders will only cause more wars.\n\nUnited States: the so-called \"melting pot\" (although this term has assimilationist implications), where people could (allegedly) be free, a country that is proud of its population of cosmopolitan origins. The United States initially didn't adopt an official language because of the non-British settlers. However, a lot of problems in the US are because of racism. The same country that didn't assign English as the official language nationwide because of settlers of other European countries also forced the indigenous populations to abandon their culture, forced Africans to become basically flesh machines, forced the then-newly-freed Black people into lesser roles and into basically a separate worse society, forced Filipinos to stop speaking Spanish, forced Hawai'ians to give up their language and culture, and now, despite being a nation built by immigrants, a lot of Americans hate immigrants. Now Indigenous people in the Americas deal with generational trauma so bad it's kinda in their genes, **incluing being unable to listen to a colonial language without triggering a trauma**. Also, American culture is apparently bland and boring so people identify with their ancestors' quite gatekeepy culture(s), making mixed-race people \"confused\" and have identity crises, like half of /mixedrace is angst over not fitting anywhere.\n\nEurope: mostly made-up of (somewhat) homogeneous countries, these countries have \"diversity\" mostly because of immigrants. The immigrants only go to Europe because Europe fucked up the rest of the world to the point of looking like a utopia by comparison, and the high quality of life depended and still depends on them fucking up the rest of the world even more. And Europe only \"needs\" immigrants because it has an economic system that relies on constant growth, there needs to be a lot of young workers to sustain the elderly population, and \"native\" Europeans aren't \"breeding\" fast enough for the market's liking (and are often too expensive for those stingy businesses).\n\nBrazil (maybe the rest of Latin America as well): often called \"racial democracy\". There is no racial harmony. Black and brown people are way more likely to be poor and Latin America has the worst wealth inequality in the world. Much of the miscegenation in Latin America comes from whitening policies and from the rape of Black and Indigenous women. This is why a lot of Black activists in Brazil think that miscegenation is genocide and that the word \"pardo\" (word commonly used for the mixed-race brown people) \"should only be used for paper and bears\".\n\nHave you noticed all those groups for Black/Asian/Latino/LGBT+ whatever, even for stuff that has nothing to do with race or sexuality (like constructed languages or gardening)? Being a minority makes people feel unsafe in \"general\" spaces just by being outnumbered, making \"good segregation\" necessary sometimes, and your very specific experiences get drowned by \"white\" or \"cis-het\" experiences. And that creates a vicious cycle where the \"general\" forums get more and more dominated by the majority population.\n\nAlso, have you seen children at a school? Kids bully each other over **anything**. This is why the alleged benefit of school unity of uniforms doesn't work. This is why a nation-wide list of approved names for newborns is pointless.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Humans seem incapable of living with human diversity, so I don't see why diversity is good.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b0i14h/cmv_humans_seem_incapable_of_living_with_human/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ks842lz",
                    "author": "bikesexually",
                    "body": "Racists are racist so why shouldn't I be?\n\nDamaged people act in irrational ways so it must be human nature?\n\nKids are trying to figure out how society works and some of them are jerks so it must be human nature?\n\nYou examples and reasoning here are pretty scarce and thin. Fact is we are all individuals and just because someone puts one foot forwards to act as part of a group doesn't mean their other foot wouldn't get them ostracized from the same group. There is no 'one identity' that people embody. Everyone has many facets and aspects to their personality. Fascism is where everyone pretends to be the same and all are hurt by it.",
                    "date": "2024-02-26",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b0i14h"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1b1syn3",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "ksgvckq",
                "author": "billbar",
                "body": "Lol dude dating/love/relationships isn't at all the same as playing cards or building a city. You're viewing dating way too businesslike. To CMV: if you ONLY talk to your crush to plan dates, a lot of them will think that you don't really have feelings for them, or are only trying to have sex with them. The point of dating is to find someone you connect with, and you can't connect with someone if you don't... try and connect.\n\nYou could extend your 'efficiency' argument further and say the only thing you should talk about while you're with the other person is the relationship itself. How many kids you each want, where you want to live, when you want to get married, etc., but that's just not fun at all. You're SUPPOSED to talk about fun things and enjoy each other's company. Generally speaking in the beginning of a relationship, you don't spend every waking moment together, and chatting about things other than scheduling is a great way to 'spend time' with someone while you're not actually spending time with them.\n\nThe fact that you spent a paragraph talking about why telling everyone other than the person you like that you like that person (which is generally something everyone knows by the time they're 14-15 years old) means you have a shitload to learn about dating/relationships. My guess is you're a teenager?",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 33,
                "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
            },
            {
                "id": "kshgp88",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": ">if you ONLY talk to your crush to plan dates, a lot of them will think that you don't really have feelings for them, or are only trying to have sex with them.\n\nThis is a great point. I agree that the \"only when necessary\" approach to texting might come off as disinterest and only in the relationship for the dates as opposed to the actual connection.\n\n>You could extend your 'efficiency' argument further and say the only thing you should talk about while you're with the other person is the relationship itself.\n\nThis is another great point and I agree that would not be fun at all because it is missing the actual connection. Perhaps relationships are more about commonality and shared experiences, and things such as kids, cohabitation, and dates only strengthen the connection.\n\n>Generally speaking in the beginning of a relationship, you don't spend every waking moment together, and chatting about things other than scheduling is a great way to 'spend time' with someone while you're not actually spending time with them.\n\nYep, I also agree that you generally don't spend every moment together in the early stages of a relationship. Mainly because people have different schedules and want time before spending more time together.\n\n!delta",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "ksgvckq"
            },
            {
                "id": "kshgsg2",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/billbar ([4\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/billbar)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kshgp88"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgttn3",
                    "author": "LongDropSlowStop",
                    "body": "Human interaction isn't an optimization problem. If you actually like someone, interacting with them should be a benefit in and of itself. Not just a means to an end.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 31,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksidqzj",
                    "author": "Sulfamide",
                    "body": "Everything can be an optimization problem.\n\nBut I agree that given the complexity oh human relationships, wanting an optimal strategy is foolish.\n\nAlso, there\u2019s liking and there\u2019s liking. There are some people that I don\u2019t like talking to but that I really want to fuck.\n\nLastly, even though OP framed it like an optimal strategy, I would say that the advice is good. I believe that there are very little situations where instant messaging isn\u2019t simply the worst way to have a healthy happy with anybody.",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ksgttn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgvsef",
                    "author": "Ballatik",
                    "body": "Isn\u2019t the point of a date to share company and conversation for the sake of enjoyment and fostering connection?  Aren\u2019t other forms of communication such as messaging also capable of this?",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksi9k69",
                    "author": "Organic_Muffin280",
                    "body": "No",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ksgvsef"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgw79b",
                    "author": "ApprehensiveSquash4",
                    "body": "Why can't you do both?",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgx5mx",
                    "author": "Tanaka917",
                    "body": "I feel like you're jumping from one extreme to the other with no pause for the middle. \n\nSo in highschool because you were unclear with your feelings and involved others it triggered a chain reaction of bad times. You've chosen to compensate for this by being as direct as possible with your feelings so as to leave no gap for confusion. Now I will say I agree being direct is good, and I will agree that in person will always be important.\n\nThe thing you might not be considering is that texting is in fact a method of communication you can use while still being rather direct. It's not necessary to be coy over text. Texting someone you like is enjoyable; there's a lot of room between hi and date. Granted it's easier to text the better you know someone and the more clear you are about what you mean to each other but it doesn't preclude texting. At some point you'll have to learn how to casual text enough to get by. \n\nFor instance one of my friends lives overseas. My night is her afternoon/evening therefore I wake up most days to some sort of meme hoard/voice note or video. Mostly something silly and fun she thinks I might like. There's nothing boring about it and I'd be rather sad if the only times we ever messaged was to schedule a call y'know?\n\nSo in summary, yes it's good to be direct but texting doesn't necessarily stop you from doing that. If you prefer in person do that but don't try to reduce it to a binary choice when it's really just another tool you can use for communication.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh1bht",
                    "author": "manatorn",
                    "body": "The trouble with that perspective, my friend, is that it relies on the consistency of the landscape.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh2l34",
                    "author": "NoVaFlipFlops",
                    "body": "As a woman,\u00a0 if you ONLY messaged me to schedule dates I would wonder if you even liked me. If I decided you did like me and you kept this up, I would think you see me as just a reliable activity partner. I would also point out to you that you ought to listen to your therapist. They don't give straight up advice or personal opinions unless they think you can handle it (ie accept it without taking it personally) and if they think you are about to mess things up. It's nice you seem to trust her that she's not arguing with you for the sake of arguing or something. But just trust her.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksi9i0p",
                    "author": "Organic_Muffin280",
                    "body": "Or you just tell her upfront you never text",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ksh2l34"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh72aq",
                    "author": "Colleen_Hoover",
                    "body": "> What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible\n\nHave you ever driven through West Virginia or South America? I don't know what they're doing in Europe, but mountains are hard as shit to blast through for the sake of a road. In the civilized world, mountain roads slope and squiggle.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh9k7j",
                    "author": "pavilionaire2022",
                    "body": ">Suppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nReasoning by analogy doesn't prove anything, but even your analogy fails. Different forms of transportation exist: cars, trains, planes, boats. All of them take some form of the most direct and efficient route, but all are useful for different purposes. You take a different form if you are in a hurry than if you're trying to save many or carry a lot of freight.\n\nIf you want to have a long conversation, by all means, save it for a date. If you just have a thought you think might be interesting to someone, they generally appreciate you letting them know you're thinking of them.\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nYou seem to be looking for a simple rule to avoid a faux pas, but being so rigid will be equally off-putting. Just match the energy of the other person. If you're messaging them a lot, and they aren't initiating messages with you, then maybe back off a bit.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kshd2hv",
                    "author": "alpicola",
                    "body": ">My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head.\n\n\nYeah... As you've discovered, don't do this. Talking directly to the person you want to go out with is better in just about every possible way.\u00a0\n\n\n>My other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate.\n\n\nIt\u00a0depends. If you're having a real conversation, then carrying on that conversation isn't desperate, it's just having a conversation. If your messages are all a bunch of low/no value gibberish, or if you're trying to force a conversation that's clearly died, then yes, that's going to seem like desperation. I'm the early, middle, and late stages of dating, conversations are good.\n\n\n\n>Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week.\n\n\nIf asking her about her week is the total extent of your conversation with her, then looking desperate is probably the least of your problems. Ideally, you want to move on to having enough of an ongoing conversation that you already know how her week is without needing to explicitly ask. That said, assuming you only get to see her once a week, asking about her week isn't a bad way to start up the conversation, provided you actually care about her answer.\u00a0\n\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response.\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nYeah, so don't do that. You can usually tell when a conversation dies, and it's easy enough to confirm when a follow up message a day or so later also goes unanswered.\n\n\n>Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\n\nWorry less about appearances and more about connections. The kinds of chats that get posted on reddit come because people fail to make a connection and fail to realize that they've failed. Arbitrary texting rules are a great way to *cause* missed connections. You'll be far more successful if you forget the rules and learn how to read the room.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksiebfg",
                    "author": "agaminon22",
                    "body": "If I only messaged my crush for our dates, I wouldn't have been in a relationship for the last two years. Whatever works for you, I guess.",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksis8vz",
                    "author": "Big-Fat-Box-Of-Shit",
                    "body": "Willfully ignoring the advice of your therapist... very smart.",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1b1syn3",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "ksgw2me",
                "author": "ReOsIr10",
                "body": "In your 4th paragraph, why are you framing this as if texting your crush to schedule a date and texting your crush just to chat with them are mutually exclusive? Your choice isn't only between a \"10 point\" date and a \"1 point\" text conversation, there's also an \"11 point\" date and text conversation option.\n\nOn the other hand, your 5th paragraph is accurate. It's possible to come off as clingy or desperate by texting too much. But on the other hand, it's possible to come off as cold or uninterested by texting too little. The goal is to find a sweet spot somewhere in the middle, not to embrace whichever extreme seems less bad.",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 7,
                "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
            },
            {
                "id": "kshisan",
                "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                "body": ">Your choice isn't only between a \"10 point\" date and a \"1 point\" text conversation, there's also an \"11 point\" date and text conversation option.\n\nThis is great advice. I think there may be another variable than just \"points\". Dates are not going to be an all-the-time thing because people have different schedules and priorities, so text conversations could fill in the gaps. It's better to have a \"10 point\" date and then \"1 or so points\" of text conversations as opposed to just the date.\n\n>But on the other hand, it's possible to come off as cold or uninterested by texting too little.\n\nThis is another great point. I agree that there is a sweet spot between texting so little as to appear disinterested and texting too much as to appear desperate. Some people may say to text every day but I think a comfortable frequency for me is about 3 times per week.\n\n!delta",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "ksgw2me"
            },
            {
                "id": "kshj0rj",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ReOsIr10 ([115\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/ReOsIr10)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-02-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kshisan"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgttn3",
                    "author": "LongDropSlowStop",
                    "body": "Human interaction isn't an optimization problem. If you actually like someone, interacting with them should be a benefit in and of itself. Not just a means to an end.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 31,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksidqzj",
                    "author": "Sulfamide",
                    "body": "Everything can be an optimization problem.\n\nBut I agree that given the complexity oh human relationships, wanting an optimal strategy is foolish.\n\nAlso, there\u2019s liking and there\u2019s liking. There are some people that I don\u2019t like talking to but that I really want to fuck.\n\nLastly, even though OP framed it like an optimal strategy, I would say that the advice is good. I believe that there are very little situations where instant messaging isn\u2019t simply the worst way to have a healthy happy with anybody.",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ksgttn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgvsef",
                    "author": "Ballatik",
                    "body": "Isn\u2019t the point of a date to share company and conversation for the sake of enjoyment and fostering connection?  Aren\u2019t other forms of communication such as messaging also capable of this?",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksi9k69",
                    "author": "Organic_Muffin280",
                    "body": "No",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ksgvsef"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgw79b",
                    "author": "ApprehensiveSquash4",
                    "body": "Why can't you do both?",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksgx5mx",
                    "author": "Tanaka917",
                    "body": "I feel like you're jumping from one extreme to the other with no pause for the middle. \n\nSo in highschool because you were unclear with your feelings and involved others it triggered a chain reaction of bad times. You've chosen to compensate for this by being as direct as possible with your feelings so as to leave no gap for confusion. Now I will say I agree being direct is good, and I will agree that in person will always be important.\n\nThe thing you might not be considering is that texting is in fact a method of communication you can use while still being rather direct. It's not necessary to be coy over text. Texting someone you like is enjoyable; there's a lot of room between hi and date. Granted it's easier to text the better you know someone and the more clear you are about what you mean to each other but it doesn't preclude texting. At some point you'll have to learn how to casual text enough to get by. \n\nFor instance one of my friends lives overseas. My night is her afternoon/evening therefore I wake up most days to some sort of meme hoard/voice note or video. Mostly something silly and fun she thinks I might like. There's nothing boring about it and I'd be rather sad if the only times we ever messaged was to schedule a call y'know?\n\nSo in summary, yes it's good to be direct but texting doesn't necessarily stop you from doing that. If you prefer in person do that but don't try to reduce it to a binary choice when it's really just another tool you can use for communication.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh1bht",
                    "author": "manatorn",
                    "body": "The trouble with that perspective, my friend, is that it relies on the consistency of the landscape.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh2l34",
                    "author": "NoVaFlipFlops",
                    "body": "As a woman,\u00a0 if you ONLY messaged me to schedule dates I would wonder if you even liked me. If I decided you did like me and you kept this up, I would think you see me as just a reliable activity partner. I would also point out to you that you ought to listen to your therapist. They don't give straight up advice or personal opinions unless they think you can handle it (ie accept it without taking it personally) and if they think you are about to mess things up. It's nice you seem to trust her that she's not arguing with you for the sake of arguing or something. But just trust her.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksi9i0p",
                    "author": "Organic_Muffin280",
                    "body": "Or you just tell her upfront you never text",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "ksh2l34"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh72aq",
                    "author": "Colleen_Hoover",
                    "body": "> What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible\n\nHave you ever driven through West Virginia or South America? I don't know what they're doing in Europe, but mountains are hard as shit to blast through for the sake of a road. In the civilized world, mountain roads slope and squiggle.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksh9k7j",
                    "author": "pavilionaire2022",
                    "body": ">Suppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nReasoning by analogy doesn't prove anything, but even your analogy fails. Different forms of transportation exist: cars, trains, planes, boats. All of them take some form of the most direct and efficient route, but all are useful for different purposes. You take a different form if you are in a hurry than if you're trying to save many or carry a lot of freight.\n\nIf you want to have a long conversation, by all means, save it for a date. If you just have a thought you think might be interesting to someone, they generally appreciate you letting them know you're thinking of them.\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nYou seem to be looking for a simple rule to avoid a faux pas, but being so rigid will be equally off-putting. Just match the energy of the other person. If you're messaging them a lot, and they aren't initiating messages with you, then maybe back off a bit.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kshd2hv",
                    "author": "alpicola",
                    "body": ">My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head.\n\n\nYeah... As you've discovered, don't do this. Talking directly to the person you want to go out with is better in just about every possible way.\u00a0\n\n\n>My other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate.\n\n\nIt\u00a0depends. If you're having a real conversation, then carrying on that conversation isn't desperate, it's just having a conversation. If your messages are all a bunch of low/no value gibberish, or if you're trying to force a conversation that's clearly died, then yes, that's going to seem like desperation. I'm the early, middle, and late stages of dating, conversations are good.\n\n\n\n>Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week.\n\n\nIf asking her about her week is the total extent of your conversation with her, then looking desperate is probably the least of your problems. Ideally, you want to move on to having enough of an ongoing conversation that you already know how her week is without needing to explicitly ask. That said, assuming you only get to see her once a week, asking about her week isn't a bad way to start up the conversation, provided you actually care about her answer.\u00a0\n\n\n>I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response.\u00a0\u00a0\n\n\nYeah, so don't do that. You can usually tell when a conversation dies, and it's easy enough to confirm when a follow up message a day or so later also goes unanswered.\n\n\n>Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\n\nWorry less about appearances and more about connections. The kinds of chats that get posted on reddit come because people fail to make a connection and fail to realize that they've failed. Arbitrary texting rules are a great way to *cause* missed connections. You'll be far more successful if you forget the rules and learn how to read the room.",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksiebfg",
                    "author": "agaminon22",
                    "body": "If I only messaged my crush for our dates, I wouldn't have been in a relationship for the last two years. Whatever works for you, I guess.",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1b1syn3",
                    "author": "CEO_Of_Rejection_99",
                    "body": "During my last therapy session about a week ago, I originally proposed only messaging a woman I like (this is not about a specific situation, just in general) for scheduling dates. My therapist said I actually don't have to do that; I can and perhaps should message the woman for the sake of messaging, and just wanting to get to know her more is already enough reason to message her.\n\nMy main reason for my previous point of view: the most common advice people will give about crushes is to just talk with them directly. In a similar vein, it's always better to ask them out directly and communicate your feelings rather than trying to circumvent it by telling other people. One word comes to mind: efficency. My previous method of pursuing relationships in high school was by telling a bunch of my peers and using them as a vehicle to communicate my feelings for me, along with trying to manifest a relationship in my head. This often ended badly since it usually ended in a whole drama involving a million people that was not fun for anyone. That was not an efficient method of communicating my intentions since the transfer of information was not direct at all. Therefore, the better alternative would be to communicate my feelings more efficiently. How? By asking them out directly, cutting out all the extra buffonery, and communicating my intentions as fast and efficiently as possible.\n\nSuppose you want to build a highway between two cities. What do you do? Do you wind the road up mountain sloped and squiggle it around through valleys? No! That is not an efficient route between the two cities. Instead, you build bridges over the valleys and rivers and blast tunnels through the mountains to keep the highway as straight, flat, and efficient as possible for efficient transportation between both cities.\n\nPlus, imagine you have two types of cards you can play in pursuing a relationship. One card is a text conversation, and the other card is scheduling a date. Although both lead to the core of a relationship, which is \"getting to know each other\" (which I'll call relationship points for the sake of argument), they yield different values of relationship material. The text conversation card is immediate but yields less points, say, only 1 point. On the other hand, scheduling a date takes more time but yields more points, say, 10 points. Which card will I pick? I will pick the \"scheduling a date\" card, since, although it will take more time, it will yield more points in the end. One card just makes stuff, the other card makes stuff that can in turn be used to make even more stuff, therefore yielding more stuff in the end.\n\nMy other reason for only messaging when necessary (i.e. scheduling a date) are not wanting to come off as desperate. I feel like a lot of people complain about men saying \"hey\" because it's a dry and uninteresting opener, and there's not much to go off of. Therefore, a message such as \"Would you like to go on a date?\" might elicit more of a response. I also fear coming off as repetitive and thereby desperate. Let's say I ask a woman how her week was. Well, there will always be many many weeks, so every week I might as well how her week was every week. But then that would be very repetitive, and therefore coming off as desperate since I would be asking the same thing over and over and over again. I also fear coming off as the men on r/niceguys and sometimes r/texts who continually send messages over and over again without ever recieving a response. Therefore, I really only send messages when I deem it necessary so I don't come off as one of those desperate texters that people make fun of.\n\nCMV",
                    "date": "2024-02-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: You should only message your crush when scheduling dates.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1b1syn3/cmv_you_should_only_message_your_crush_when/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "ksis8vz",
                    "author": "Big-Fat-Box-Of-Shit",
                    "body": "Willfully ignoring the advice of your therapist... very smart.",
                    "date": "2024-02-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1b1syn3"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1bfactx",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                "date": "2024-03-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kuz6xqn",
                "author": "WheatBerryPie",
                "body": "The thing is, the government has no incentive to remove different forms of tax. Each type of tax serves a different purpose and affects a different component of the economy: income tax affects productivity, wealth tax affects investment, property tax affects the property market, tariffs affect imports, etc etc. If you are the government, you follow a specific political ideology. When you have multiple levers to pull, you can change the taxation profile of the government to fit your political ideology. If you are isolationist, you can raise tariffs; if you want to prevent second home purchases, you can raise property tax, so on and so forth. It's just a smart way for the government to interfere with the economy.",
                "date": "2024-03-15",
                "score": 13,
                "parent_id": "1bfactx"
            },
            {
                "id": "kuz7fmd",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": "!delta I agree that having more control mechanisms (or levers) is better, but same can be achieved with giving appropriate tax breaks for income taxes.\n\nBut what comes to tariffs or import taxes those hinder economic progress and lower the productivity. There shouldn't be any ever. Same goes wealth taxes that are just double dipping and investments are already taxed through capital gain tax.\n\nThis is also ignoring the fact that income tax model prevents tax evasion and therefore increases tax revenue for the government. This alone should be enough incentive for them to adopt this model.",
                "date": "2024-03-15",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "kuz6xqn"
            },
            {
                "id": "kuz7hu5",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/WheatBerryPie ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/WheatBerryPie)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-03-15",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kuz7fmd"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuz6zi2",
                    "author": "10ebbor10",
                    "body": ">Personally I believe things should only be taxed once\n\nThat would eliminate income tax, no? \nAfter all, your wages are paid by someone who must have earned that money, abd would have been taxed on it as sone point.\n\n>Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all\n\nOn the contrary, avoiding taxes is trivial. Base your operations in a country which taxes only income, but do all your recruiting in a country which doesn't.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuz7v7j",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": ">That would eliminate income tax, no? After all, your wages are paid by someone who must have earned that money, abd would have been taxed on it as sone point.\n\n>\n\nWork creates more wealth and that wealth is taxed. Sales or profits company get are not taxed. Only wealth you created.\n\n>Base your operations in a country which taxes only income, but do all your recruiting in a country which doesn't.\n\nIf you operate in country where only income is taxed, all your employees are paying tax. You can't avoid paying these taxes because those employees are located there.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kuz6zi2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuz73rg",
                    "author": "RedMarsRepublic",
                    "body": "Horrible idea, the richest people in the world aren't making money from work at all, it's all from investments and capital gains, this would just enlarge the gap between rich and poor even more.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 14,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuz7kxt",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Capital gain should be taxed with same bracket as labor gain. I said this at end of paragraph three.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kuz73rg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuz8sou",
                    "author": "LentilDrink",
                    "body": "Pollution should definitely be taxed.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuza0v6",
                    "author": "poprostumort",
                    "body": ">This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times\n\nProblem is that more property and wealth causes you to use shared resources more. Every property relies on support from government that is maintaining roads, sewage systems etc. As for wealth - using it also puts burden on shared parts. So you need the way for charging for that as getting rid of it would need that someone who earned enough money to stop working can use those services and not pay taxes that cover costs generated by them using their wealth and property.\n\n>But if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism.\n\nThis is oversimplification. Yes, the \"beginning of all wealth\" is work, but later you can use wealth to substitute for work. You can hire people to do work for you and buy machines to work automated. This means that you as a person gathering wealth are not subject to income taxes and tax burden is switched to people working for you - meaning that they are the ones paying taxes to finance your wealth generation.\n\nThis means that I can incorporate and start to gain wealth via work of my employees - and if I am successful, this means I will not pay tax on my use of this wealth (as I can have it to be distributed to me in a way that is not considered income). At the same time the government tax spending does not change - which means that missing taxes have to be taken from somewhere. In our scenario there is only an income tax so the whole burden would fall on people who are working in my company. This means that workers will earn less, while I can enjoy the benefits of my wealth uninterrupted by any taxes. Don't you see a problem there?\n\nHonestly, if we would need to get rid of a tax to simplify the code - income would be the one to go. It is most counterproductive tax as it directly punishes you for working - every dollar you made working is taxed, while other ways of wealth creation and usage can avoid that \"problem\".\n\nThe most logical way to structure a tax system is to tax at spending, not at income. After all this would incentivize investments over spending and make it much harder to dodge taxes.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzfndp",
                    "author": "dmc_2930",
                    "body": ">The most logical way to structure a tax system is to tax at spending, not at income. After all this would incentivize investments over spending and make it much harder to dodge taxes.\n\nThis shifts the tax burden tremendously to those with less earnings/wealth. It's extremely regressive.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kuza0v6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzcois",
                    "author": "Local-Ad6658",
                    "body": "I think your question comes from low level of understanding how accounting works.\n\nIncome is not profit. Companies can very well operate on a loss for years, supplied by loans or stock emission. This is actually the most common way to skip taxes - whatever you gain, invest and show overall zero or loss, while growing each year.\n\nTaxing pure income side would kill trade. Technically speaking, one good can change hands many times, and do we treat each sale price as income?\n\nEven if we go for pure income to skip this profit/loss discussion, you can get significantly wealthier by having no income, when your possesions appreciate in value, like houses or stocks. \n\nYou can get income, by just having stuff, like inherited land, stocks, companies. And you will be getting rich faster than average worker Joe, just by leasing land or means of production. Even with 50% income tax. \n\nI could go on, but there is practical side why we have more types of taxes. There is plenty of ways, and proposals, to simplify the system, but just one income tax is pipedream.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzcr2u",
                    "author": "Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho",
                    "body": "Have you ever heard about Georgism? You\u2019re right that there are a lot of inefficient taxes (corporate taxes) and outright harmful ones (tariffs), but the best tax is a land tax. It has the lowest negative externalities, is the hardest to avoid, and discourages the least wealth creation.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzd8tk",
                    "author": "Dennis_enzo",
                    "body": "Property tax is fair because you take a piece of property away from society and the public for your personal use. So you should pay back to society to compensate for that. This property usually doesn't exist in a vacuum; if it's a building it is dependant on sewers and power and public roads to function properly. If you're a company, you rely on a functional society and infrastructure to have employees work for you .And even when it's just a piece of land with a forest on it, you're still relying on society and the government to enforce the rules that keeps other people away from your land. You pay property tax so that the police will come and stop me when I try to build a house in your forest. \n\nSimilar things can be said for a wealth tax. Wealth is also not created in a vacuum. You can only become wealthy because there is a functional society allowing you to, which costs money to maintain. The wealth is taken away from society, in other words from the rest of us. Hoarding wealth instead of reinserting it into society is bad for the economy and by extension for everyone else, so having to pay taxes when you do that seems fair to me.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuze6ey",
                    "author": "KCBSR",
                    "body": "> Personally I believe things should only be taxed once.\n\nWhy? Taxation has multiple roles. \n\nTo pay for some things sure, but There are other reasons to prevent a concentration of wealth, to protect industries from going bankrupt due to international competition etc..\n\n1. In inheritance tax for example would result i mass concentration of wealth in the hands of incredibly few people. Current levels of wealth concentration are already dangerous for democrasy, freedom, and liveihoods. Making it worse is a more dangerous road to go down. \nIt would also require a higher tax burden on the poor as now the income from rich inheritances would be gone. \n\n2. That may be not too compelling given your, I am assuming libertarian?, mindset, there is also the issue of protecting industry and markets. E.g. China deliveratley subsidises its steel manufacturing to gain a greater market share and develop a monopoly. One of the few ways the US can stop this is taxing it with Tarrifs at the entry to prevent artificially low prices?\n\n>To maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.\n\n\nNot sure on the cost in the US, but in the UK national taxation only covers about 30% of what we spend, the rest is other forms of tax (business rates, tariffs etc..) so to rise appropriately would mean more than double. seems like a lot.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzer3x",
                    "author": "LaCroixLimon",
                    "body": "The most fair way to tax people is on consumption.   \nPeople often say consumption taxes are regressive, but this is not true.  You can pick and choose exactly what items/services to tax and which of those to be tax free.  You can do this in a way that the average working person pays almost zero taxes while the wealthy pay their fair share.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzev10",
                    "author": "ta_mataia",
                    "body": "In today's world, all money is fiat. All money is created by governments in order to fuel work, which is the source of all wealth. Given that money is all created by governments, this requires governments to create a need for money so that we use it. Governments do this by taxation. Taxation takes money out of the economy and creates a demand for it, since now we all need money in order to pay our taxes. With this in mind, it doesn't really matter how many times a dollar is taxed, because the main purpose is simply to remove money from the economy. In fact makes it a good idea to tax static wealth that people are hoarding, because that is money that is not moving around and fueling the economy.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzh1gc",
                    "author": "c0i9z",
                    "body": "Everyone who has property now bought taxable property. To turn it into non-taxable property would be a massive transfer of wealth to property owners.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzjt3v",
                    "author": "Flipsider99",
                    "body": "You know, I really like your argument.  It's quite convincing!  If it were put into practice, I don't think it'd be a bad idea at all.\n\nAnd yet, I can't help but detect something that I feel like I could argue against.  And it's a flaw that I feel like I tend to notice around political arguments a lot... I'm not sure if I can make this argument convincingly, but I'll throw it out there and see what you think.\n\nI think in life, as well as in politics, people overvalue purity of ideas.  This can actually be a good thing, but I think when it comes to politics, it tends to result in a gravitation towards exteme ideas, when often a better solution would be something messier, something more balanced and with compromises.  This is more of an overall philosophical point, but I think it may apply to your argument as well.\n\nYou say \"I believe in only taxing things once,\" and on the surface this seems to make sense, but... the amount of times things are taxed actually really doesn't say anything about fairness.  The amount is what really makes it fair, moreso than the amount of times being taxed.  Now granted, the more ways the government finds to tax us, the more they can seemingly get away with taxing a higher amount without it being noticed, of course you'd want to make that point and you'd be right.  But there are pros and cons to every approach, including for the idea of income taxes, and I think that sales tax has it's merits as well.\n\nI think you just always want to ask yourself, is this really the best result because I honestly think it will have the best results?  Or do I want to believe that because the purity of the idea is appealing?",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzpfv2",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": ">when often a better solution would be something messier, something more balanced and with compromises.\n\nFor there to be balance and compromise there must be some benefit in the alternative.\n\nRight now I don't see any benefit of having complicated tax system that only few highly paid individuals understand and are hired to exploit it. In this case simplicity means that there is nowhere to hide.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kuzjt3v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzl9aj",
                    "author": "jerimiahWhiteWhale",
                    "body": "The unimproved value of land should be taxed, because it is not distortionary. There is a fixed quantity of land, and by taxing its unimproved value, owners are incentivized to utilize the land for productive means. \n\nGoods with negative externalities should also be taxed. Cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, and greenhouse gas emissions should all be taxed so that their market price approaches their true economic costs. \n\nI also agree that income should be taxed, primarily to keep inequality in check, but the cases for taxing the two categories above are pretty strong.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzm0jz",
                    "author": "themcos",
                    "body": ">\u00a0Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\n\nYMMV on a case by case basis, but in general this is a feature not a bug. The fact that tax policy can be used as an incentive towards / away from certain lifestyles and choices is a useful knob for policy. As with all knobs, it can be used for good or bad, but it's still a useful tool.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuznth7",
                    "author": "RexRatio",
                    "body": ">Only income should be taxed\n\nSure, make it even easier for the rich. \n\nHere's what's already happening and would exponentially increase happening:\n\nThe richest people can put all their wealth in trusts and holdings, the overhead cost for them (accounting etc.) is negligible and they officially pay themselves a modest salary, on which the income tax is nothing compared to their actual wealth. \n\nSo holding investments within trusts or offshore accounts offers tax advantages but is only affordable for wealthy individuals. They are thus able to minimize tax liabilities on income, capital gains, or inheritance.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzowx2",
                    "author": "shaffe04gt",
                    "body": "Look ill admit I don't like paying property taxes, but they dp have benefits.\n\nOur town has amazing schools, amazing park district facilities, biking and walking trails.  Our town puts on great events all summer long.  That's all paid for with property taxes.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzoxi8",
                    "author": "shaffe04gt",
                    "body": "Look ill admit I don't like paying property taxes, but they dp have benefits.\n\nOur town has amazing schools, amazing park district facilities, biking and walking trails.  Our town puts on great events all summer long.  That's all paid for with property taxes.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzq994",
                    "author": "SatisfactoryLoaf",
                    "body": ">Personally I believe things should only be taxed once.\n\nA tax isn't a punishment. \n\nYou tax things you want less of, and you subsidize things you want more of. The government doesn't need x% of my income - they could just print new bills, but income taxation is a way to regulate and influence wealth distribution and money accumulation. Whether that's effective or not depends on the government's goal and taxation methods. \n\nTaxing property is controlling of a different resource than wealth. Subsidizing first time homeowners would be an exception, showing something the government \\[presumably\\] wants more of. \n\nIt makes no sense to \"only tax once.\" The government wants multiple things to happen.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzqb5k",
                    "author": "kingpatzer",
                    "body": "I'll just talk about property taxes.   \n\n\nMy city doesn't have an income tax. However, my property requires services from the city.  Who should pay the tax to fund those services? Me, who owns the property and makes a very healthy 6-figure income, or my adult 22-year-old kid who lives with me and is working a $15/hr gig?",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv0mn8t",
                    "author": "GeorgeWhorewell1894",
                    "body": ">Who should pay the tax to fund those services?\n\nNobody. They should be charged to people who use them based on their usage.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kuzqb5k"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzsfy4",
                    "author": "breadloaves77",
                    "body": "These are very interesting points you make.  \n  \nI've always thought that income tax should be eliminated in favor of a monstrous increase in sales tax on everything. On a scale - almost none on bread, like 100% on a Ferarri.  \n  \nThen that basically (basically) being the only tax there is. This is a very rough, under-nuanced way of describing it.\n\nIt would eliminate tons of fraud and tax trickery on every level. Everyone, including tax dodgers and criminals of all stripes spend money. It would also help close a lot of wealth gaps, as the government would be getting more to help those to have less.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kuzsmth",
                    "author": "Illustrious_Ring_517",
                    "body": "Only money spent should be taxed",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv003w2",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "And this allows companies and rich individuals to avoid taxes.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kuzsmth"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv046v8",
                    "author": "PromptStock5332",
                    "body": "Taxation is theft and theft is immoral. So nothing, including income should be taxed.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv05dbc",
                    "author": "Rare_Year_2818",
                    "body": "Economists favor VATs and LVTs because they are less harmful to the economy. There's a strong argument that LVTs actually help the economy, because land owners are encouraged to use their land in an economically efficient manner and not just hoard it.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv0mufq",
                    "author": "GeorgeWhorewell1894",
                    "body": "That's only good if your goal is to entirely ignore the people and just try to optimize the economy like it's some machine.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kv05dbc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv0crd6",
                    "author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
                    "body": "How you should be taxed really depends on your views of government and centrally planned economies. The never-properly-ratified 16th Amendment, which was required to make income tax legal, is THE singular reason why we've had an explosion in the size of the federal government. You're not wrong in feeling like we should only be taxed once, but you've chosen the absolutely worst place to apply that tax.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv0vqgc",
                    "author": "Affectionate_Money34",
                    "body": "To maintain your wealth, the government is doing things. Your property's value is heavily dependent on having drinkable water in the faucet, and also quite dependent on teachers in the area getting a salary. The wealth is created by work that is simply not done by you, yet you want to be exempt from paying for that work.\n\n\nAs for the company example, keep in mind that, due to compounding, the income tax you are discussing needs to be at a much average rate than today. Its very hard to imagine how this shifts the burden more towards people who's exclusive income is, well, income, from people who's making a substantial amount from capital and cam afford to delay realizing profits",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv0vrx2",
                    "author": "Strange-Badger7263",
                    "body": "I believe the opposite all taxes should be on wealth. In a capitalist society your value is based on your wealth. The more wealth you have the more you have to lose. Taxes are used to fund the underlying framework of society. That framework is more beneficial to the person with more wealth because they have more wealth not because they earn more income.\n\nJeff Bezos paid a billion dollars in taxes. He is worth 200 billion so for the protection of the US government and the ability to use its roads for his business and trust he won\u2019t be robbed he is paying %0.5 of the assets that are being safeguarded. I have half a million dollars and paid 40k in taxes. I\u2019m paying %8 for the same services as him.\n\nI pay Fidelity based on a percentage of assets under management why shouldn\u2019t I pay the government for assets under protection.\n\nI pay car insurance based on the value of my car not based on the maintenance I do every year.\n\nThe total net worth of America is around 150 trillion dollars. Total tax revenue for the federal government and state governments is around 7 trillion. If the only thing taxed was wealth the tax rate would be a bit less than %5. The tax would be flat and fair. There would be no income tax no property tax (the value of property is included in your wealth but only the equity) there would be no corporate tax (since the shareholders would be paying based on the value of shares). The bottom %50 of the country would still pay no taxes.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv19ihk",
                    "author": "Jimithyashford",
                    "body": "So do you mean this as a postion ideological principles or a position of functional reality?  \n\n\nThere are lots and lots of things that I can say I feel as a matter of pure contextless ideological  adherence, but which I acknowledge just can't/don't work in reality. So that is my first question. Cause for my money, sacrificing functional stability on the altar of ideology is generally a terrible idea and almost always backfires.\n\nSo, that's first. Secondly, do you count income as only the immediate and direct wage tied directly to labor, or income as being any and all means by which wealth may increase? Cause there are wildly different implications there. \n\nAnd lastly, do you mean income should be the only tax in the sense of what we currently pay in income tax should be all there is, or in the sense that all taxation should be realigned so that it only happens on income, so our income taxes would go up substantially but all other taxation would cease?  \n\n\nAll of these need an answer before anyone can really intelligently respond to your point.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv1jz9q",
                    "author": "Sangay__Tenzin",
                    "body": "While your proposal of taxing only income appears straightforward and eliminates certain complexities, it overlooks several key factors:\n\n1. **Wealth Accumulation Beyond Income**: Wealth can accrue through means other than direct income, such as inheritance, investments, or asset appreciation. Taxing only income could ignore these sources of wealth, potentially exacerbating wealth inequality.\n\n2. **Distribution of Tax Burden**: Different types of taxes distribute the tax burden differently among individuals and entities. Relying solely on income taxation might disproportionately affect certain groups, particularly those who rely on assets or property for their livelihood.\n\n3. **Economic Efficiency and Behavior**: Tax policies influence economic behavior. Taxing income might discourage savings, investment, and entrepreneurial activities, which are vital for economic growth. Property and wealth taxes can help ensure that individuals contribute based on their overall wealth, not just their annual income.\n\n4. **Revenue Stability**: Income taxation is susceptible to economic fluctuations. During economic downturns, income tax revenues may decline, leading to budgetary shortfalls. Diversifying tax sources, such as property and wealth taxes, can provide more stable revenue streams over time.\n\n5. **International Tax Competition**: Globalization enables corporations to shift profits to low-tax jurisdictions. While taxing only income might mitigate some forms of tax avoidance, it could also intensify international tax competition and encourage companies to relocate their operations to jurisdictions with more favorable tax policies.\n\nIncorporating a mix of income, property, and wealth taxes allows governments to achieve a balance between revenue generation, fairness, economic efficiency, and stability. Adjustments to the tax system should consider these factors comprehensively to ensure a fair and effective taxation framework.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv2jlrr",
                    "author": "DavidMeridian",
                    "body": "I think that this would result in insufficient tax revenue - even if income tax rates were higher. It would also shift the tax burden to wage-earners rather than those who derive most of their income from capital gains & dividends.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kv3rjc5",
                    "author": "markroth69",
                    "body": ">But if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. \n\nThen why shouldn't we tax the wealth held by people who live off of others' work?",
                    "date": "2024-03-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvaiozu",
                    "author": "RRW359",
                    "body": "I think a progressive income tax should be and from what I understand is the main source of revenue but if an expence is directly related to use there should be taxes used as an offset. For example if you drive a vehicle and your vehicle damages the roads there needs to be a way for only drivers to pay for that to put less of a burden on non-drivers; which is where we get fuel tax.\n\n\nOf the examples you listed I'm not totally sold on wealth tax, but if you own expensive property and aren't renting it out then not only does it mean you are likely to be able to afford higher taxes but people who could be renting have to be on social programs that cost the government money.\n\n\nAs for moving overseas, flat income taxes can get regressive if high enough which is why progressive income taxes exist. Unfortunately that's where the problem of moving comes in; I live in Portland, Oregon and have known too many people who don't have a problem with taxes when they don't make a lot of money but move to Vancouver, Washington as soon as they do. I'm not saying their tax structure is better then ours but we need to have some useage-based taxes to provide a more stable income then pure income tax.",
                    "date": "2024-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bfactx",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "Right now we pay direct taxes on income, property and wealth and indirect taxes on sales and imports.\n\nPersonally I believe things should only be taxed once. This why property and wealth taxes are wrong because you are taxing same money multiple times. Same goes to sales taxes especially when different goods are taxed differently. Now depending on your lifestyle and choices your total tax burden might be different.\n\nBut if we consider wealth creation it is done only by one single mechanism. Work is beginning of all wealth and no wealth can be created without some sort of work. This is birth of money and IMHO only point where it should be divided for redistribution. Also I believe that all income should be treated equally and taxed on same progressive scale no matter if it's labor or capital gain.\n\nThe most common way large corporations avoid paying taxes is either going to region with a low corporate tax rate or buying IP licensing (that they owe themselves) from a shell company where there are no taxes. But if only income is taxed someone must be doing work somewhere and that work will be taxed. Companies can't avoid paying taxes by this scheme at all.\n\nTo maintain same tax income and tax burden, actual income tax needs to be risen appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-03-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Only income should be taxed",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bfactx/cmv_only_income_should_be_taxed/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvavth5",
                    "author": "OyVaavoy",
                    "body": "The problem is that taxing everything is the only way to tax anything. Otherwise, creating tax loopholes would be very easy. For example, instead of paying me a salary, my boss would buy a small pebble from me every month and give me my salary tax-free.",
                    "date": "2024-03-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bfactx"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1bjg2bj",
                "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                "date": "2024-03-20",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kvqyucb",
                "author": "darwin2500",
                "body": "You sort of have a semantic problem here.\n\n*By definition*, a transitional form is something that only exists briefly in between two stable forms.  The fact that they are not visible in large numbers in nature is part of the definition.\n\nI think the evolutionary concept you're missing here is [punctuated equilibrium.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/punctuated-equilibrium).  Evolution is not slow with entire species having functionless mutations that are halfway to being something useful for a long time.  Evolution is sudden changes between different stable equilibriums, where a mutation that randomly unlocks some new advantage spreads and develops rapidly until reaching a new stable point where further mutations don't offer much more advantage and the population stabilizes.\n\nI think you're also confused about what types of evolutionary changes happen. Changes in big things like the number of limbs happen like once in a hundred million or a billion years.  \n\nVertebrates developed the basic structure for four limbs [around 400 million years ago](https://www.nature.com/articles/41710), and every vertebrate you see today has that same four-limbed structure... [even snakes have legs!](https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/how-do-we-know-living-things-are-related/vestigial-organs).\n\nThe types of evolution you can expect to see happening around you are smaller things like slight changes in coloration or changes in limb *length* or changes in beak shape or changes in digestive enzymes or etc. And we *do* see tons of variation in those traits, both among individuals and between species,  such that it could be that many of those variations are in the process of shifting to a new equilibrium.\n\nBut you would not *expect* to look at the world and see some species where ever member has a functionless fifth half-leg, on the way to becoming a species with 5 functional legs.  That's not actually how evolution works.",
                "date": "2024-03-20",
                "score": 60,
                "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
            },
            {
                "id": "kvrccup",
                "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                "body": "As you've mentioned, evolution doesn't just happen overnight, it happens over millions of years. But for a transitional form to even exist long enough to pass down those beneficial mutations, it has to be relatively stable in the sense that it has to exist probably for thousands if not millions of years. \n\nThe \"sudden changes\" that you're talking about between different equilibriums are likely still on the scale of tens of thousands of years. On a microevolutionary scale, they also still have to be sufficiently beneficial/benign in order to survive for that long. Considering the vast numbers of species on this Earth, should we not at least be able to see some of those \"sudden changes\" in the process of happening? \n\nI guess I'm expecting something a little more like an extra limb flipping out of a random wild horse somewhere, which might not be realistic considering how rare it is that limbs and eyes developed. I would give a !delta for pointing out the rarity of additional appendages and other similarly big features throughout evolutionary history though!",
                "date": "2024-03-20",
                "score": -4,
                "parent_id": "kvqyucb"
            },
            {
                "id": "kvrch2d",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/darwin2500 ([187\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/darwin2500)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-03-20",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kvrccup"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqte2z",
                    "author": "Watercanexplosion",
                    "body": "You're saying evolution isn't real?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqu5z9",
                    "author": "DesideriumScientiae",
                    "body": "It's a bit more complicated than that, and it's not like everything fossilized, so they could have existed, but usually, only the changes that have direct positives cause the speciation, not benign stuff as much, I think that's how it works at least.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvquicj",
                    "author": "MysticInept",
                    "body": "They didn't say fossils. They are saying the animals they see alive today do not look like they are in a transitional state.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kvqu5z9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqub9i",
                    "author": "Pastadseven",
                    "body": "Every single extant and previous form is a \u2018transitional form.\u2019",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqubgm",
                    "author": "Biptoslipdi",
                    "body": "What do you think a whale's fins are? Look at their bone structure to see what appears as a large hand bone.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvquqna",
                    "author": "MysticInept",
                    "body": "If I understand the OP argument, they would argue that is a complete fin. But there should be some animal in transition now that has incomplete fins.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvqubgm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvquyfi",
                    "author": "Tricky-Elderberry142",
                    "body": "Seals look pretty damn transitional to me.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqv5rg",
                    "author": "Josvan135",
                    "body": ">If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process\n\n\nWe do.\n\n\nLiterally every creature alive today is a \"transitional form\" as compared to ancestors and (potential, assuming they don't go extinct) descendants.\n\n\nI'm curious, when you were posting this, what was your idea of a \"transitional form\"?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 40,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqwo0a",
                    "author": "Quartia",
                    "body": "Likely, something like Tiktaalik or Ambulocetus that's halfway between two ways of living, since they specifically mentioned \"features and appendages\".\n\n  \nExcept humans are that. We're in transition between being quadrupedal tailed animals, and being fully adapted to being bipedal and tailless.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 16,
                    "parent_id": "kvqv5rg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvffa",
                    "author": "Adequate_Images",
                    "body": "This is just a misunderstanding that of what a transitional form is. \n\nEverything is a transitional form from an evolutionary perspective. \n\nThe changes are very small and take a verrrrrry long time. \n\nhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqzk4g",
                    "author": "MysticInept",
                    "body": "Do you understand why that won't be very convincing to the OP?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvqvffa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvfyj",
                    "author": "parentheticalobject",
                    "body": "There are transitional forms.\n\nTake a look at the evolution of the [eye](https://www.britannica.com/science/photoreception/Evolution-of-eyes).\n\nEvery intermediate stage is covered, and the diagram lists examples of mollusk species at one stage. A few outer cells have photoreceptors. Then the patch of photoreceptors curves inward, granting some slight ability to tell where light is coming from. Then skin begins to fold over, leading to the development of something like a pinhole camera. Then a simple lens evolves over the cavity, and then plenty of small improvements can lead to complex eyes like those of humans or octopuses. Each of those steps is partway through the process of developing an eye, and each proto-eye works better than the last step.\n\nOf course, there's a logical problem when asking for \"transitional forms\" - it's a question that can be repeated infinitely. If you want to look for a transitional form between organism 1 and organism 2, maybe you'll find organism 1.5 which is halfway between them. But then you can just ask the question again - where's the transitional form between 1 and 1.5, and where's the transitional form between 1.5 and 2? And if you find those, you can ask for four more transitional forms. It goes on forever, so it's unfalsifiable.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 15,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr9fjw",
                    "author": "ihatepasswords1234",
                    "body": "I think your last paragraph is the real problem. No matter how many transitional forms you find you could always be asked to find more.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvqvfyj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvjq1",
                    "author": "jatjqtjat",
                    "body": ">animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.\n\nthere are two ways you could imagine this going.\n\n1. First way is that a part of an organism that used to be functional has stopped serving any purpose.   (your losing something)\n\n2. The second way is that an organism would benefits from a new feature and that feature has started development but that development not yet finished.  (your gaining something)\n\nthe first does happen, and we see it all over the place.  they are called vestigial structures.  vestigial structures in humans include\n\n* goose bumps when you are scared or cold.  Hair frolics standing on end make you look larger to predictors and help keep you more insulated when cold.  Humans don't have hair but still get goose bumps.\n* tail bones\n\nOften we debate if a feature is really vestigial or not, but you can just google and find hundred of examples.  They are common.\n\nthe second way, does not happen because evolution has no foresight.  a mutation must have immediate benefit in order to be preserved.  A wild animal doesn't have a better chance of surviving and passing on its genes because it has a mutation that could later mutate again into something more beneficial.  \n\nadding new appendages is indeed exceedingly rare.  no birds, mammals, reptiles, or amphibians.  all animals in these kingdoms have 4 or fewer appendages.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 38,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr78lp",
                    "author": "sik_dik",
                    "body": ">For a new feature to evolve each mutation in the process must increase fitness\n\nthis is not necessarily true. any mutation that has no net loss nothing can also survive. \n\nthere's also sexual selection at play in features that serve no purpose for individual survival (but still works for genetic reproduction). peacocks are a great example of a natural feature actually being a hindrance toward survival of the individual. it's costly of resources, slows the bird from escaping predators, and serves no purpose other than attracting a partner. the giant plumage propagates only because of sexual selection. it's effectively an unchecked feedback loop. you could argue it's useful in the sense of attracting a mate. but why peahens even care about it in the first place is purely arbitrary",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "kvqvjq1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvmmz",
                    "author": "TheSunMakesMeHot",
                    "body": "What do you mean? There are plenty of animals that have vestigial parts. What kind of creature would you expect to see that isn't extant?\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvs95",
                    "author": "junction182736",
                    "body": "> If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism.\n\nWhy would the \"features and appendages\" not have to be functional? One thing to consider is functional features are advantageous in a certain environment giving rise to a proliferation of those \"features and appendages\", and if that environment changes they may not be advantageous anymore and perhaps deleterious. So you're not likely to see non-functional \"features and appendages\" hanging around for very long in any environment.\n\nSecondly, we don't know everything, and what seems \"non-functional\" from observation may indeed be functional on some level. \n\nhttps://theconversation.com/walking-fish-help-scientists-to-understand-how-we-left-the-ocean-91411",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvvm6",
                    "author": "Irhien",
                    "body": "It's not absent, you just can't recognize it. Who says flying squirrels aren't on their way to develop full flight like that of the bats? Maybe it won't happen, sure, but this is how it always goes: evolution can only use what already exists to develop it further, and things don't exist for meaningful periods of time without being functional.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvy2b",
                    "author": "DeadCupcakes23",
                    "body": "We've just seen yellow emperor penguins for the first time who will either die out or have some advantage and spread. So you have a transitional form right there.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqvydd",
                    "author": "ZappSmithBrannigan",
                    "body": "Tiktalik was the perfect example of transitional form  AND novel prediction. \n\nIt's the transition between aquatic and land animals. Fish with fingers. And it was predicted to be in a specific strata, and when we went to look, there it was",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqw6x9",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "You have vestigial structures. In your body. https://www.britannica.com/list/7-vestigial-features-of-the-human-body",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqwblo",
                    "author": "The_White_Ram",
                    "body": "Vestigial traits are the other end of what you are talking about and evidence that is contrary to your position. Vestigial traits are literally the definition of a transitional form as the appendage/organ is no longer needed yet still remains.\n\n*\"Vestigiality is the retention, during the process of evolution, of genetically determined structures or attributes that have lost some or all of the ancestral function in a given species.\\[1\\] Assessment of the vestigiality must generally rely on comparison with homologous features in related species. The emergence of vestigiality occurs by normal evolutionary processes, typically by loss of function of a feature that is no longer subject to positive selection pressures when it loses its value in a changing environment. The feature may be selected against more urgently when its function becomes definitively harmful, but if the lack of the feature provides no advantage, and its presence provides no disadvantage, the feature may not be phased out by natural selection and persist across species.*\r  \n\r  \n*Examples of vestigial structures (also called degenerate, atrophied, or rudimentary organs) are the loss of functional wings in island-dwelling birds; the human vomeronasal organ; and the hindlimbs of the snake and whale.\"*\n\n[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality)",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqxo3t",
                    "author": "MysticInept",
                    "body": "What is the word for that in the opposite direction? Something added that is new?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvqwblo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqwif4",
                    "author": "utah_teapot",
                    "body": "One small counter-argument: most animals do not have extra limbs. Most animals follow the pattern of four limbs, with five fingers each. Even horses have \u201cfingers\u201d inside their hooves. Actually gaining limbs is something that happens extremely rare, especially in animals that have skeletons.\n\nFor transitional animals, donkeys and horses are sort of that thing. They are different species, sort of, in that two members of the two groups can have a baby together, but that baby, while capable of living, is usually not fertile and can\u2019t have babies. So horses and donkeys are somewhere between same species and different species.\n\nFor \u201cdifference in features\u201d, let\u2019s compare tigers and lions. Lions have manes, tigers don\u2019t. I would call that a \u201cfeature\u201d. Tigers and lions are in the same situation like donkeys and horses. If we saw them 1 million years in the future, and they were no longer capable of siring offsprings together , would that be a good argument for macro-evolution in your eyes?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqwswu",
                    "author": "frisbeescientist",
                    "body": "> features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism\n\nPlenty of organisms have these features, there's even a name for them: vestigial structures. For example, whales have vestigial pelvic bones that are useless but used to be hips for the hind legs that their evolutionary ancestors did have. Even humans have some, like the coccyx at the bottom of our spine that is all that remains of a tail. Look up vestigial structures and see how many examples exist; this should readily disprove your hypothesis.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqxbe1",
                    "author": "Bruhahah",
                    "body": "They're all transitional. For example, when England was burning heavy coal, the peppered moths were almost all black because the white birch trees were darkened with soot, white ones got eaten, so progeny were more likely to be black. Then coal burning rates slowed, trees turned white again, and then the black moths had a harder time with camouflage so the white ones lived to reproduce more and the species started trending white again. Same 'transitional form' reacting to environmental selective factors. Everything is in adaptation to its environment if the stressors are severe enough. If you want a good example for some 'tweener' forms that are still successful, there's axolotls and mudfish with hybrid lungs and gills, there's snakes with vestigial legs left over internally, etc.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqxhlm",
                    "author": "eloel-",
                    "body": "Everything that does not have a carapace and pincers is a transitional form. So there's no lack of transitional forms right now, most species are transitional forms.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqy0xv",
                    "author": "Alesus2-0",
                    "body": "All forms are transitional. Contemporary species just seem 'complete' to you, because they match what you expect to see. You construct a narrative of what they're 'meant' to be and do. If you actually look for it, nature today is full of examples of anatomy that doesn't make much sense or could obviously be better.\n\nThere's no good reason for deep cavedwelling creatures to have eyes, so it might make sense if they didn't have them. But there's no practical reason for an animal to have eyes that don't work. So why would a species have non-working eyes?\n\nThere are species of slithering lizards (not snakes) with vestigial legs. It's obvious why legs would be handy. It seems plausible that if an animal can slither like a snake, it might not need legs. But why would a species of animal have a set of tiny, useless legs?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqy720",
                    "author": "nauticalsandwich",
                    "body": "Seals? Whales? Penguins? Mudskippers? These are some of the most visually obvious ones, but literally everything is in a transitional state. Heck... WE have this thing called an appendix (that we don't really need) and sometimes just randomly \"decides\" to rupture and kill us. Some of us can grow facial hair, and some of us cannot.\n\nWe have \"transitional\" fossils in the fossil record.\n\nT-Rex's arms???\n\nThe problem here is that you are envisioning a kind of evolutionary transition that is different and less gradual than the actual processes and timescales of the evolutionary process.\n\nA whale's blowhole didn't just start developing as a blowhole. It was a nostril that moved further and further back over millions of years.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqych9",
                    "author": "Zodiac1919",
                    "body": "Humans have a tailbone but no tail, Whales have vestigial legs from when they walked on land, flightless birds have vestigial wings, etc. There's plenty of examples in the world that animals are transitioning. In fact, every animal could and should be considered \"transitional\", there is no ultimate final evolution, at least not one we've ever seen. The theory of natural selection simply states that those whose genetics are best suited for their environment are passed on generationally. \n\nA great example of this is the Peppered Moth, a moth that used to be predominantly white, which transitioned to predominantly black after the Industrial Revolution affected its habitat.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqyimg",
                    "author": "ptn_huil0",
                    "body": "For your last sentence - there are lots of lizards out there that behave like snakes but have tiny useless limbs, so transitional species are everywhere. Some even claim that appendix in humans is a useless organ which will eventually disappear. Also, you need to read up about increasing number of people getting an extra artery in their arms (extra blood and nutrition for our hands and fingers will refine our micro movements, which is very helpful for technology) - if that\u2019s not evolution at work, then I don\u2019t know what is.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqyucd",
                    "author": "Jimithyashford",
                    "body": "You would be correct if there were no transitional forms. We have like.... literally millions of them though. So your premise is completely incorrect.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqz30h",
                    "author": "FetusDrive",
                    "body": ">If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism.\u00a0\n\nWe have plenty of examples of this. Look at flying squirrels vs bats. The flying squirrel cannot fly; but it can glide. Over millions of years or hundreds of thousands of years, if it is beneficial to glide even further, the ancestors may be much better flyers (or actually flying) than their ancestors who were only able to glide.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqz68s",
                    "author": "obert-wan-kenobert",
                    "body": "> we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. \n\nIn humans alone:\n\n* Tailbone\n* Wisdom teeth\n* Appendix\n* Ear muscles\n* Sinuses\n* Goosebump response\n* A bunch of other random muscles you've never heard of",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvsyy0t",
                    "author": "humblevladimirthegr8",
                    "body": "This should be higher up. The evidence of evolution is indisputably within our own bodies",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvqz68s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqzcxx",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": ">we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism\n\nAlex, what is a vestigial organ?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvqzwzf",
                    "author": "Watercanexplosion",
                    "body": "How's it feel being a moron you piece of shit?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr20wg",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "u/Watercanexplosion \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \r\n\r\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Watercanexplosion&message=Watercanexplosion%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/-/kvqzwzf/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvqzwzf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr0mw5",
                    "author": "Cryonaut555",
                    "body": "This explains it better than any text could:\n\nhttps://youtu.be/UuIwthoLies?t=68",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr1lyy",
                    "author": "GenericUsername19892",
                    "body": "You mean like mudskippers?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr27cw",
                    "author": "WUT_productions",
                    "body": "I mean we do see some \"halfway\" forms even in humans. Many humans grow wisdom teeth even if their jaw cannot support it and it causes dental complications. Some humans don't grow wisdom teeth and therefore carry a mutation to not develop wisdom teeth.\n\nOf course, in the developed world we have wisdom teeth extraction so developing wisdom teeth isn't exactly a big contributor to evolutionary pressure to propagate the no wisdom teeth gene.\n\nEvery species is technically in a transitional form. Every one of us has mutations that mostly do nothing. But some are impactful and those get carried on. Humans across the world are getting taller on average and part of that is that people are choosing to procreate with taller people.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr2dac",
                    "author": "Holiman",
                    "body": "Given that every advanced biological program on earth accepts evolution as real and basic to biological understanding.  They use it both to explain and predict with real reproducible results.  How can you not just question it, but say it's not good enough to be the accepted answer?",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr328j",
                    "author": "Necessary_Fill_5412",
                    "body": "The \"Mudskipper\" is a fish that walks on land...is that enough of a \"transitional form\" to you ? :)",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr38dg",
                    "author": "ralph-j",
                    "body": "See: [29+ Evidences for Macroevolution](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)\n\n> *The Scientific Case for Common Descent*\n> \n>  *This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.*",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr3wa4",
                    "author": "depricatedzero",
                    "body": "African Pigmy Hedgehogs have my favorite evolutionary trait: vestigial hibernation.\n\nBecause they come from Europe, where hedgehogs hibernate. As they entered Africa they lost the need to hibernate, and their behavior and physiology adapted so that they no longer store fat for hibernation.\n\nBut they never actually lost the ability to hibernate, or the trigger. At least, not yet. They're transitioning away from it, still. So if their body temperature drops below 70 degrees (I think) they trigger hibernation - which means they get sick and die.\n\nI mean it's fucking horrible for them and if you keep one as a pet you absolutely have to make sure they're in a warm environment to prevent that from happening. But there is an example of a creature with some dire consequences to being mid-transition in shedding unnecessary evolutionary traits.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr4u1v",
                    "author": "FerdinandTheGiant",
                    "body": "It\u2019s rare for me to see a post that is related to my field (evo. biologist) so hopefully I can help out. \n\nFor starters, the difference between macro evolution and micro evolution are the same thing, the only difference is the scale and the line is drawn at speciation. We have undoubtedly observed speciation so we have undoubtably observed macroevolution. \n\nWhen it comes to transitional fossils, we have many. Transitional [turtles](https://i.natgeofe.com/n/d1327821-96c5-4e94-a24e-8007e2f202e7/Cowabunga_2x3.jpg), transitional [birds](https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/jPAC99xp_kFB_uxfiKulnnbKQ5g=/1500x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/2048px-Archaeopteryx_fossil-5c5b17f246e0fb0001849b0e.jpg), etc. etc. and we can see many transitional traits in extant species.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrdnv8",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "Just curious as to whether there are examples of speciation within the span of human history alone?\n\nAs far as speciation goes, I'm aware of how speciation occurs. Maybe macroevolution might have been the wrong term, but I was thinking about the development of complex structures like eyes or limbs that might not otherwise provide an evolutionary advantage until fully formed in some way, and I would expect that the intermediate stages between when the structure is a random mutation versus being an evolutionary advantage would take a fair bit of time, and I would think that given the vast number of species that this intermediate would be observable at some point.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "kvr4u1v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr7rnd",
                    "author": "CaptainMalForever",
                    "body": "Vestigial appendages completely exist. In humans, we have a tailbone, even though we are apes and thus do not have tails. Snakes have hip bones, though they have long since developed to have no legs. Many more examples exist like this.  \n\n\nThis is all based upon the idea that evolution is a straight line. That humans were once monkeys and there is a creature between me and a chimpanzee. However, instead, evolution is much better understood if it is branches. Each evolutionary form is not a replacement, necessarily, of the previous form, but a [branch](https://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-emergence-of-humans/).",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvr9vh2",
                    "author": "ConstantAmazement",
                    "body": "Darwin himself mentions the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. He was hopeful that further discoveries would be found to substantiate his theory and even stated that it would be fatal to his theory if they were not. \n\nPrepare yourself! This observation always causes lots of hate from the Darwinian evolution crowd as they double-down on Darwin because they feel that if they are honest and acknowledge the problem, they get fearful that it will be used against them by believers as proof of God. \n\nWe really only want them to come up with a better scientific theory, but it's impossible to talk them down from the ledge.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrsbv3",
                    "author": "I_am_the_night",
                    "body": ">Darwin himself mentions the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record.\n\nDarwin died 150 years ago. We've made a lot of discoveries since then, including a ton of transitional fossils.\n\n>He was hopeful that further discoveries would be found to substantiate his theory\n\nThey did\n\n>Prepare yourself!\n\nConsider me prepped\n\n>This observation always causes lots of hate from the Darwinian evolution crowd as they double-down on Darwin \n\nThere's no \"doubling down\", it's that you are *only wrong*.  Transitional fossils exist, we literally have tons of them.  Archaeopteryx, Australopithecus afarensis, Pakicetids, Tiltaalik, Amphistium, and Runcaria are just some of the most famous examples.\n\n>because they feel that if they are honest and acknowledge the problem, they get fearful that it will be used against them by believers as proof of God. \n\nNo it's because you're stating false information. Transitional fossils exist, and there's plenty of room for God there too unless you subscribe to a fundamentalist young Earth creationist view.\n\n>We really only want them to come up with a better scientific theory, but it's impossible to talk them down from the ledge.\n\n*But you are wrong about what you said here*.  You can literally go look up pictures of transitional fossils.  [There's an entire Wikipedia article about them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil?wprov=sfla1).",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kvr9vh2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrbil0",
                    "author": "CBL44",
                    "body": "\nAside: I assume you are Christian from your question. I suggest you read 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins. It has a great explanations of evolution and Collins's reasons for believing in god.\n\nTo answer your question directly, there are tons of transistional forms in the fossil record. Search for evolution of whales/horses/birds/humans\n\nHere are some for whales:\n\nhttps://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-evolution-of-whales/\n\nOr would you prefer horses (look at the evolution of their feet and toes)\nhttps://www.britannica.com/animal/horse/Evolution-of-the-horse\n\nOr birds:\nhttps://evolution.berkeley.edu/what-are-evograms/the-origin-of-birds/",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrdg57",
                    "author": "Loose_Hornet4126",
                    "body": "I\u2019d like to direct you to Richard Dawes selfish gene. Not that you wasted your time. I want you to tell us why it\u2019s important. Forget about contributing and helping your friends.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrgldy",
                    "author": "Fit-Order-9468",
                    "body": "We can see transitional forms all the time with selective breeding. This at least supports the underlying mechanicism for evolution. It just so happen fitness is what prospers in a human environment.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrkkh5",
                    "author": "Light_of_Avalon",
                    "body": "Just gonna drop this: https://youtu.be/OuqFUdqNYhg?si=A_3GesbyXs1o5wC-",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrmzzb",
                    "author": "MagicGuava12",
                    "body": "Breed 3 generations of flies and get back to me. The research is beyond proven.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrn4rf",
                    "author": "c0l245",
                    "body": "You ARE a transitional form. Everything is a transitional form. All life is constantly transitioning. \n\n10,000 years from now when humans have no appendix and our documents have been obliterated by the AI wars, people will argue that the appendix never existed.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrpphv",
                    "author": "GoldH2O",
                    "body": "You have a mistake in your reasoning here. And that's that ALL organisms are \"transitional forms\". There's no end goal to Evolution, so there's always potential for an organism to become better adapted to the environment it lives in. Transitional traits are not absent from living creatures. Every single feature of every single organism is transitional.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvrqdqe",
                    "author": "Wooden-Ad-3382",
                    "body": "almost kinda zeno's dichotomy paradox here",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvsgdiv",
                    "author": "FXST20Bobber",
                    "body": "Transitional forms, like glass lizards? Or like Boids having vestigial pelvic bones and vestigial femurs that have shrunk into external \"spurs\"? \n\nHow about Echidnas and Platypus's? They're prehistoric egg laying mammals.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvsr553",
                    "author": "xFblthpx",
                    "body": "Evolution isn\u2019t supposed to explain why different species *exist.* It\u2019s supposed to explain why organisms have *different traits,* which precedes the definition of a species. The world is full of transitional forms today, as every organism is unique, but the way we arbitrarily classify organisms is too broad to capture how all species are in the process of transitioning in one way or another. Hell, the average skin color of humans changes every year as a result of growing interconnectedness, and different areas of the world experiencing different stages of demographic transitioning (mortality and birth rates changing). That\u2019s an observable difference in traits related to humans that we are seeing rapidly change as a result of reproductive selection. Is that a transitional form? Most transitions happen too slowly to be recognizable but that doesn\u2019t mean they aren\u2019t existent. The ability to reproduce with another species is just another arbitrary way we categorize animals, and that trait comes from evolutionary circumstances, but that doesn\u2019t mean *all evolutionary changes in traits* leads to changes in reproduction. Crocodiles and alligators seem more similar than Labradors and chihuahuas, yet crocodiles and alligators are separate species whereas \u201cdog\u201d is one species. Hopefully I\u2019ve made my argument that all species are in a transitional form in some way or another and we simply don\u2019t observe it because of our arbitrary and broad mechanisms of classification.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bjg2bj",
                    "author": "UncomfortablePrawn",
                    "body": "The lack of transitional forms in nature today makes it difficult to believe that macroevolution is a legitimate way in which different species originated.\n\nMacroevolution suggests that over thousands/millions of years, sufficient genetic differences are accumulated to the point where two populations that originally came from a common ancestor are no longer able to reproduce with each other. While I agree with this part, I believe that this fails to explain how organisms develop biological features like additional limbs.\n\nEvolution suggests that differences in features arise through small mutations in the genetic code, which are passed down over time as they either aid the survival of the organism or are benign and do not affect the reproduction of the organism. If that is the case, then we should see (even today), animals and plants that are kind of \"halfway\" through this process, with features and appendages that may not be functional but do not necessarily affect the survival of the organism. The fact that this is absent in animals and plants today makes macroevolution's argument seem a lot weaker.",
                    "date": "2024-03-20",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: The lack of transitional forms disproves macroevolution.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bjg2bj/cmv_the_lack_of_transitional_forms_disproves/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kvvubjd",
                    "author": "WovenHandcrafts",
                    "body": "The Panda is a great transitional species. They recently evolved from a terrestrial species to a climbing species, and from an onmivorous one to a herbivorous one. As a result, they've developed a sort of 6th digit on their front paws, originating as a wrist bone. This isn't as good as a real opposable thumb would be, but evolution works with the changes that show up. Their gut is also in a transitional state. Since plants take more work to digest, their intestines aren't quite up to the task, being part-way between an omnivore's gut and a herbivores.",
                    "date": "2024-03-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bjg2bj"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1bp0jqu",
                "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                "date": "2024-03-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kwt1yv9",
                "author": "adminhotep",
                "body": "You may be right when it comes to private insult, but when someone publicly disrespects you and you just let them, it affects how others think about you.\u00a0\n\nPublic disrespect is an attack on your reputation, which is why it\u2019s mostly socially discouraged. It causes conflict where if the society at large doesn\u2019t do it, the recipient needs to protect their reputation against the attacker and can result in actual hostilities - especially in honor based societies. \u00a0\n\nIt\u2019s really much easier for society to badger the shitheads who are too dense to understand that social interaction should encourage social cohesion than it is to encourage them to offend each other and maybe get shot like the idiots they are, leaving the socially acceptable to clean up the mess left by the hothead and the idiot too dense to know better than to intentionally offend them out of their own stupid principle. \u00a0 We\u2019re smarter than that and don\u2019t want to let you lot make more work for us\u2026\n\nAnd that\u2019s about where the mods should ban my comment. Partially because of the difficulty to enforce social norms online without actual spelled out rules that kind of behavior is almost universally prohibited in forums for online discussion, and for good reason. Imagine if that was the standard for interaction among people who have different views on things yet needed to cooperate and communicate. \u00a0 Not only would it force a lot more people to control their temper, but it would destroy productive interaction in the process, and the ability to interact productively is kind of the point.\u00a0",
                "date": "2024-03-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
            },
            {
                "id": "kwt5mcb",
                "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                "body": "Yeah maybe something can be said about public insults.\n\nA private insult is fine. But if they can rally a bunch of stupid but dangerous people to hate me then that could cause quite a precarious situation.\n\n!delta",
                "date": "2024-03-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kwt1yv9"
            },
            {
                "id": "kwt5ur8",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/adminhotep ([11\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/adminhotep)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-03-27",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kwt5mcb"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsdn3i",
                    "author": "Dyeeguy",
                    "body": "No one is entitled to anything, which makes the whole argument seem pointless. Entitlement is not a force of nature",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsdsjy",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "I believe we are entitled to basic human rights.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwsdn3i"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwse0z0",
                    "author": "Nrdman",
                    "body": "I think it\u2019s morally good to have a base level of respect for everyone. Do you disagree?",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsfaq8",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "I disagree that it\u2019s necessarily morally good to have a base level of verbal respect for everyone.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "kwse0z0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsec9g",
                    "author": "shadysack",
                    "body": "We aren\u2019t entitled to anything at all.\n\nBut you\u2019re generalizing wildly, describing things \u201cwe\u201d care about and what offends \u201cus\u201d no matter how hard we try. Many of the things you\u2019ve described don\u2019t apply to me in the slightest. For reference, I\u2019m pretty sure I\u2019m on the antisocial/psychopathy scale, but so is between 1% and 10% of the adult population and 30% of the American prison population. So it\u2019s a minority but not a tiny one, and not an insignificant one. \n\nAll that aside, I think \u201cnot entitled to respect\u201d and \u201cthe youth needs to be coached to not care what others think\u201d are different statements. \n\nIt\u2019s still really important what others think even if them liking you is just a means to an end, and you see no intrinsic value in it - you don\u2019t even have to see other people as people. What is important in my mind is making sure you\u2019re not valuing the opinions and thoughts of other people higher than *your own* - and, done properly, this is something that can be done in introductory philosophy. I took two of these classes in college but it could certainly be done in high school or even earlier. Problem is that formal philosophy is more or less indistinguishable from formal mathematics and logic, and many of the people teaching high school students and younger are absolute dogwaffle at the latter.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsgib8",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "I believe we are entitled to basic human rights.\n\nWould you feel offended if i said my post was referring to normal people who aren\u2019t psychopaths or mentally ill?",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwsec9g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsetw8",
                    "author": "Rainbwned",
                    "body": ">So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected.  \n\nPeople usually won't make posts about how something doesn't bother them. So if someone says something mean to a person, if it doesn't bother them then that is the end of it.    \n\nIs there any meaningful distinction between verbal respect, and just respect?",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsh9oe",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Could you elaborate on how your first point is opposition to my view?\n\nI wanted to filter out the type of disrespect of spitting on someone\u2019s face or discretely video record them to post on social media.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwsetw8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwshbn7",
                    "author": "LucidMetal",
                    "body": "It actually doesn't matter whether you believe people are or aren't entitled to verbal respect. What matters is that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people in your society do!\n\nIf you don't verbally respect others you will be punished socially potentially to the point of ostracisation is severe enough.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsillq",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "I\u2019m just saying that they shouldn\u2019t be.\n\nIf my view is an unpopular one, my mind won\u2019t be changed simply due to an appeal to majority.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwshbn7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsiahc",
                    "author": "ProDavid_",
                    "body": ">We care a lot about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it.\n\n>but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it.\n\nbut... if we, individually, have control over it, why are you making a blanket statement about \"WE care a lot...\"? youre just contradicting your own point.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwslhhb",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Because while we have the capacity to control how we feel, we often forget that and don\u2019t train our mind to its full potential. Sometimes we need a reminder that we can.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwsiahc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwski6s",
                    "author": "Skrungus69",
                    "body": "Actually i think its more important to teach people not to be assholes but mabye thats just me.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsmpon",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Asshole behavior is subjective to opinion.\n\nBeing able to control what affects you is a more surefire solution to feeling hurt.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwski6s"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsv2lq",
                    "author": "sawdeanz",
                    "body": "You haven't actually given a justification for your side. \n\nIn other words, why should other people be entitled to disrespect others? \n\nWhere do you draw the line? Am I not entitled to keep my property and body safe? Or should I just tolerate being robbed and raped? You may think these are not the same as verbal respect, but I think it is. You haven't given a justification for why you draw the line at verbal respect but not other forms of aggression. It's all part of the same exact concept, just different in it's degrees of harm. But these are all reasonable expectations in a peaceful society, which hopefully you support.\n\nDoes that mean it will never happen? Of course not. Does that mean people should be arrested for speech? Of course not. But does that mean we should tolerate disrespect? No. I think it can and should be rebuked. There is no reason to expect the victims to take unearned disrespect quietly.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsw2eq",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Verbal respect.\n\nPeople shouldn\u2019t be entitled to verbal respect because committing to that would be a cost to freedom. We shouldn\u2019t be forced to respect someone who we don\u2019t like. And we shouldn\u2019t be forced to respect someone we don\u2019t even know.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwsv2lq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsxz8u",
                    "author": "Automatic-Sport-6253",
                    "body": "What \"verbal respect\" even is. If people are entitled to a certain level of respect by default as fellow human beings, why verbal respect is any different? Like, what is even you point, that it is totally okay to swear at someone for no reason? Call people names for no reason? If I can't hit you out of nowhere why should I be able to make you uncomfortable verbally?\n\n>Every time someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity.\n\nIf you try to intentionally harm me for no reason I am absolutely justified in being upset at you for doing that. I can correct you, I can ask you to stop doing that, I can try harming you back in response. I can also just not react to it at all, but that doesn't mean I must ignore it just because \"I'm not entitled to verbal respect\".\n\n>These things almost always offends us.\n\nNo. Just no. It's not the words that offend us. It's the intention to harm. If someone misgenders me accidentally but willing to use the right gender once corrected: that's not offensive. If someone assumes stereotypes based on my ethnicity but acknowledges those are wrong after being corrected: that's not offensive. But if you insist on doing something even after you've been told not to do that, that shows hostility and intent to harm. That is what offensive. Why do you think that should be tolerated and considered a norm?",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwsz3tk",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Because you can\u2019t avoid physical pain that\u2019s been inflicted. But you can avoid mental pain. And you do that by knowing your own self worth.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwsxz8u"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwt0j7j",
                    "author": "gogybo",
                    "body": "Let's talk in concrete examples. A stranger stops me on the street and says \"oi mate, you're a fat fucker aren't ya?\". Am I not allowed to say something back to him? Can't I say \"you'd better fucking apologise mate\"? Would it be a better world if people felt entitled to go round insulting people without fear of consequences?\n\nI'm sitting in a cafe and an old woman asks if she can sit opposite me. She then starts talking about her day and what she's been getting up to. Halfway through I stand up: \"sorry love but you're boring as fuck and I can't be arsed listening to you\". Was that a nice thing to do? Didn't she deserve better than that? All she wanted was a chat - the least I could've done was to be polite whilst leaving.\n\nYour philosophy sounds very Stoic and I can appreciate where you're coming from, but it only works on an individual level. We should still try to develop a harmonious society because none of us are completely free, individual agents. We're shaped by the societies we live in and the relationships we develop. A society without a basic level of shared respect is frankly a sick society which can only produce sick people.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwt33qg",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Yeah someone else previously mentioned verbal threats and I\u2019m on board with taking action against that.\n\nCalling an old lady boring and walking away from the conversation shouldn\u2019t have any legal consequence though. As for social consequences, I suppose disrespect now flows both ways. You\u2019ve verbally disrespected the old lady for no reason and now you don\u2019t get any verbal respect from everyone else. And that\u2019s only possible when you aren\u2019t entitled to verbal respect.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwt0j7j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwtt2nw",
                    "author": "PeachState1",
                    "body": "I can't force anyone to respect me, but I can expect in a modern society for people to treat me well and for normal consequences to be applied if they don't.\n\nLet's say my coworker comes up to me and calls me a bitch. In a work context, I am absolutely entitled to a certain level of verbal respect from coworkers. Whether or not I have an emotional response, whether or not I allow myself to be harmed by the word, I'm still entitled to not be called a bitch by my coworker. And I am entitled to go to my boss, explain that my coworker called me a bitch, and have the consequences of that applied to my coworker. Will that change my coworkers mind about my being a bitch? No, and it might even reinforce their perception. Does that mean I should ignore that, and let my coworker insult me and swear at me? Absolutely not. I expect in this situation that I recieve verbal respect from my coworkers, regardless of what they think of me. And I can make sure the normal social consequences of them not respecting me are applied. \n\n\"But!\" You say. \"That's *different.* What about a stranger on the street?\" \n\nA stranger comes up to me and calls me a bitch. Ok. I am still entitled to verbal respect. So I walk away. The person yells at me and tells me to come back, I need to listen to them call me a bitch. I keep walking.  Again, I can't control what they think of me. I can't control that they think I'm a bitch. But I'm still entitled to verbal respect. I'm offended, and it hurt me. Thats irrelevant to my deserving respect, and the way I can enforce my deserving respect is to refuse to engage with them.\n\nUltimately, I agree with you that I can't change anyone's mind on what they think of me. And ultimately, if someone is an asshole to me I can't control their behavior. But I think that's separate from the fact that I also deserve a reasonable level of respect from others in society. And I'm entitled to apply normal social consequences in order to not be continuously disrespected, whether that be reporting the verbal abuse to a manager, refusing to interact with someone who clearly doesn't respect me, etc.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwvgv6r",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Why should you be entitled to what people say to you? So long as it\u2019s not a verbal threat, they should be able to speak their mind. If they say you\u2019ve gotten too fat and should lose weight then that\u2019s just how they feel. If they don\u2019t identify you as a guy, then that\u2019s just how they feel. So long as they\u2019re not threatening to hurt us, why are we so concerned about what others say?",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwtt2nw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwtu201",
                    "author": "BeginningPangolin826",
                    "body": "\u201cCivilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.\u201d\n\nConan the Barbarian",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwulvj8",
                    "author": "MagnanimosDesolation",
                    "body": "If we can't control how others respect us then there's no problem, what are you arguing against?",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwval7a",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "I\u2019m arguing against the common belief of being entitled and demanding respect from others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwulvj8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwvisem",
                    "author": "AmITheOnlyOne__",
                    "body": "I agree with you because being disingenuous with yourself is the most hurtful thing you can do. I've always been very blunt and stirn with my beliefs I'm not going to be 2faced. \n\nFor example, I love going to music festivals mostly EDM I've been going for about 15 years now. I'm almost 29, The reason why I was so drawn to PLUR was because no matter where you came from, WE ARE ALL WELCOMED. there's been an understanding in the EDM scene that political views don't matter. We are all there for the music. Yes, there are people who view the music and rave community as unholy, which I can understand I've had conversations with people who have opposing views but they were very respectful conversations. We both respect each other's views without having to bend a knee to our beliefs. I've always felt safe having my own semi conversative views at music festivals. My personal view is my own, and I can understand why people think the way they do if they have different beliefs. we all human the most you can do is come to a common ground. Agree to disagree but that's it nothing more nothing less.\n\nSo, I came to reddit and saw your post and found it very relateable because a PC game I play released a Nonbinary character, which became a big issue online. What sucks is people who share my same perspective get flamed or canceled not speaking for those who are intentionally rude but the ones that have an understanding with gender ideology but have their own beliefs that doesnt aline with it.  I have a friend that uses pronouns and ive know about her views at a glance and shes heard mine before but this really upset her because i kept calling the new character by she because thats what i believe she looks like. I dont care if the gaming company made the character thats fine they have every right to do what they want. I simply said i will not call the character by pronouns because thats just not what i believe in. Best i can do is is say the character name. I spoke with a friend that had similar views the point she made was it was out of respect to call the character pronouns. What about out of respect for me? or people that dont want to want to engage in using pronouns but are feeling forced too?Theres no representation of my views on streaming platforms because you canceled and called a bigot for simply saying hey \"thats not my thing but that is yours and that is great for you\". You can't force someone to call you what you believe at that moment in time you are. I would much rather much call someone by their name. Im all for people having representation but it seems that it only swing one way. \n\nGoing back to the EDM community obviously the gaming community is very different from it. I just wish there was an understanding of both view points were people would just say I respect your views, but they are not for me & both parties can move on. \n\n\nSide notes: I've know the friend group for 2 years now.  We kept our friendship and found a common ground.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwvlox6",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "We need to be less dependent on what others say and think about us.\n\nIt shouldn\u2019t matter to them if you don\u2019t view them the same way they view themselves. Them not respecting your right to freedom is worse than whatever you may think of them. Why are they such a slave to your opinion? It\u2019s a really a parasitic way of living.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwvisem"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwybpuu",
                    "author": "poprostumort",
                    "body": ">We can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us\n\nWe can do like with any other thing - by making their actions have consequences. And that is the basis on what verbal respect is - it is a line that a society (or part of it) draws and applies consequences - for laws they will be legal consequences, for social norms they will be social consequences.\n\nWe can't control what someone think, because you thinking whatever is your own personal freedom. If you stop thinking that and start to voice it, you are no longer only thinking and start to interact with others - which means that you start to have issues where freedom of one person is encroaching into freedom of other person. At this moment you absolutely do need to draw a line as it is impossible for both freedoms to be unlimited.\n\n>If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice.\n\nAnd our reaction to it is a choice. Freedom goes both ways.\n\n>If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nNo, there isn't anything to fix. If someone is expressing a disrespectful view of you, you will not like that and treat that someone differently from someone who doesn't. If that view is expressed publicly, public will judge whether they agree with you or not and react accordingly - by voluntary associating or disassociating with you.\n\nWhat you want is for people to be forced to conform to your own standards, no matter what they think.",
                    "date": "2024-03-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwyd5f1",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "Barring extreme cases like verbal threats, there\u2019s no freedom encroaching for simply saying something to someone.\n\nBut there is clear freedom encroaching for limiting what we can say just because there\u2019s a chance someone\u2019s feelings might get hurt when they hear it.\n\nGiven that the solution is to simply not care some random person says to you, I think the law should lean towards supporting the side of saying whatever we want. It also trains people to have thicker skin and higher self-esteem.",
                    "date": "2024-03-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kwybpuu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kwzgec2",
                    "author": "UnrealRhubarb",
                    "body": ">The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nSo rather than creating a society that expects people to care for each other and punishes those who cause harm, you want people to simply stop caring? Do you genuinely believe this is practical, achievable, or even healthy? There will always be people who are offended and there will always be people who want to offend. Saying that we should just learn to not care doesn't solve the issue because people who want to offend will find new ways to do so. Your view suggests that we should just let people with malicious intent continue being jerks. It also suggests that anyone who is offended is sensitive and should get over it. You're trying to eliminate the impact without addressing the cause.\n\n>Every time someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us.\n\nBeing offended can also serve a social purpose. People who disrespect others by calling them slurs, insulting them, stereotyping them, etc. often disrespect people in more tangible ways too. A boss may limit your career options by assigning you unimportant tasks or by passing over you for promotion. A doctor may be unwilling to diagnose you or prescribe you something you need for unrelated, biased reasons. A stranger may lie about you and damage your reputation. When someone verbally disrespects you, this is just an obvious expression of whatever negative feelings they have for you. Socially punishing those people helps us prevent other forms of harm.  \n\nPersonal example incoming - I'm physically disabled and have used canes and crutches throughout my life. Sometimes people kick my mobility aids while I'm walking. I'm not offended when people do it on accident. Even when this causes me physical harm, I'm not offended because I understand it was accidental. However, I am offended when people do it on purpose. It can be hard to tell if people are doing it on purpose or not, because some people don't even notice they've done it (if it's a small kick and I don't fall, people often walk by without even realizing it happened). I can tell when someone does it on purpose by their attitude and past experiences with them. If someone calls me an ableist slur or is verbally disrespectful of me because of my disability, I can reasonably assume they meant to kick my aid or that they don't feel regret for it. When someone calls me a slur, I can report them to HR or someone else in a position of power. By reporting the name-calling, I can make it easier to prove malicious intent in physical situations. If I never reported someone calling me a slur and then they kicked my cane, it would likely be dismissed as an accident and no consequences would come about. Punishing verbal disrespect has a social function in this situation.",
                    "date": "2024-03-28",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1bp0jqu",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "So often do I hear people say they don\u2019t care what others say/think but so little do I see the proof of this self-proclamation. Everywhere I go, someone is upset over being disrespected. \n\nWe care a *lot* about what others say/think about us. Way more than we dare to admit. We are essentially dependent on it. Everytime someone disagrees with us, every time we\u2019re called fat, every time someone doesn\u2019t acknowledge our gender identity, every time someone makes assumptions based on our ethnicity. These things almost always offends us. And our solution is always to demand them to apologize and respect us. \n\nWe can\u2019t control how others perceive and/or speak to us- but we absolutely have control over whether we care about enough to allow ourselves to be affected by it. The person who is the most responsible for being offended is us. It is our fault for caring so much about how they view/talk to us. If the other person doesn\u2019t respect us then that\u2019s their choice. You can\u2019t force them to respect us. If we are prone to feeling offended by it, we are the main one who needs fixing.\n\nThe youth needs to be coached better on how to simply not care about what others think. I think ultimately this is more important  than forcing us to respect others.",
                    "date": "2024-03-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: We are not entitled to verbal respect",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1bp0jqu/cmv_we_are_not_entitled_to_verbal_respect/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kxkocsx",
                    "author": "CartographerKey4618",
                    "body": "Absolutely not. The opposite is true. There is nothing wrong with being sensitive. On the contrary hese people tend to be way more empathetic. I want more people who care about other people in this world, including what they think. The people who should be made to feel bad and unwelcomed in society are the assholes who can't control what they say out of their mouths. Why should I have to put up with that? What value is the asshole adding to society that everyone else has to ensure such unpleasantness in public to accommodate them?",
                    "date": "2024-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1bp0jqu"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kxkxxum",
                    "author": "Odd_Profession_2902",
                    "body": "1. Respect should be earned\n\n2. Don\u2019t be a slave to others\u2019 words\n\n3. It\u2019s better to be tough minded than weak minded",
                    "date": "2024-04-01",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kxkocsx"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1c35brq",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 1109,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kzefcfo",
                "author": "c0i9z",
                "body": "[https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/80-percent-of-women-dont-initiate-divorces-it-s-a-lot-more-complex-than-that-96425b3184ca](https://medium.com/the-knowledge-of-freedom/80-percent-of-women-dont-initiate-divorces-it-s-a-lot-more-complex-than-that-96425b3184ca)\n\nIt's 69% in the US, 60% in the UK. Not 80%.",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 621,
                "parent_id": "1c35brq"
            },
            {
                "id": "kzefnxp",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "Thank you. !delta doesn't fully change my view but it does seem to balance things out more",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 233,
                "parent_id": "kzefcfo"
            },
            {
                "id": "kzefr5v",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/c0i9z ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/c0i9z)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 3,
                "parent_id": "kzefnxp"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeewnj",
                    "author": "Most-Pop-8963",
                    "body": "This trend only started after at fault divorce was replaced with no fault divorce in the USA. This shows that there is not sufficient reason such as cheating for divorce leading to the majority of modern divorces. Just simple disagreements.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzef8rs",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I mean what are the stats on the reasons why people divorce? Do you have evidence? And if it really is simple disagreements how can we say women are at fault.\n\nIf a woman says she doesn't tolerate x and a man doesn't change is it his fault or hers? I'd argue it's neither. \n\nThis post isn't meant to say men are bad but to counter the ideas women are has",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "kzeewnj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeey89",
                    "author": "FaerieStories",
                    "body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening.\n\nI just Googled this and there are a number of articles that would probably give you a better-informed response than most users here could off the top of their head. This one for example:\n\n[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men)\n\n*Women also tend to gain fewer emotional benefits from marriage, which could make single life seem more appealing. While married men experience multiple perks \u2013 including living longer and earning more money \u2013 women don\u2019t usually benefit from their relationships in the same way. Instead, they bear the brunt of household and child-rearing labour, which can leave working women \u201coverwhelmed and stressed\u201d, says Fort-Martinez.*\n\n*Women also tend to have more close friends than men (in fact, in the US, 15% of men say they have no close friendships at all), meaning they have a better support system both to discuss any marital issues as well as to ease the transition back into single life. It\u2019s also possible these friendships make divorce seem like a more plausible option \u2013 research suggests that if a close friend gets divorced, people\u2019s own chances of divorcing rise by 75%.*\n\n*Add this to the fact that women get primary custody of children in the vast majority of divorce cases, so women may feel they have less to lose when filing for divorce compared to men. And in some ways, they are right \u2013 evidence shows men\u2019s wellbeing tends to*\u00a0[*drop much more dramatically*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/)\u00a0*immediately following a divorce.*\n\n*But in reality, this effect can be short-lived. \u201cIn the short-term after divorce, men\u2019s overall wellbeing decreases more, and they report higher levels of loneliness,\u201d says Kar. \u201cBut over time that evens out, and women continue to suffer from more chronic, long-term effects including the loss of home ownership, reduced financial means, and increased stress from life as a single parent.\u201d*",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 306,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefh9v",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "How does that show that women are the cause of the failing relationship?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "kzeey89"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefk0y",
                    "author": "CostanzaCrimeFamily",
                    "body": "All it means is that women have more inclination to initiate divorce and give up because they know (with society\u2019s backing) that they have tons of options waiting for them. Or at least that\u2019s what they think. Many women in their 40s for instance get a sobering dose of reality when they are newly single and they aren\u2019t as desired as they were 10 years ago.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfqbze",
                    "author": "Znyper",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/CostanzaCrimeFamily \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20CostanzaCrimeFamily&message=CostanzaCrimeFamily%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzefk0y/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzefk0y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefklk",
                    "author": "parkway_parkway",
                    "body": "I agree that knowing who initiated doesn't tell you who caused the breakdown, which is often due to both parties to a degree. \n\nHowever it's interesting to look at male-male marriages Vs female-female marriages for clues on how different genders behave. \n\n\"[A 2022 study](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples) of Norway, using data up to 2018, found that divorce rates 20 years post-marriage were 5% lower for male-male marriages compared to male-female marriages and were 29% higher for female-female marriages vs female-male marriages.\"\n\n\"A study of marriage dissolution rates in Sweden spanning the years 1995\u20132012 found that 30% of both male same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages ended in divorce, whereas the separation rate for female same-sex marriages was 40%\"\n\nAnd then it's also interesting to look at domestic violence in lesbian relationships. \n\n\"[The CDC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_same-sex_relationships) also stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. The study notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators.\"\n\nIn general seeing that women initiate 80% of divorces and assuming that's evidence of men being at fault is a good example of the [Women are Wonderful](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect) fallacy.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 95,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefvnf",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Where did I ever assume men were at fault? This post isn't about that. But rather that women are not majority at fault. Some may be at fault. Others not. Sometimes its man. Sometimes its women..",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "kzefklk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefr4g",
                    "author": "sanschefaudage",
                    "body": "Divorce rates for lesbians are higher than gays which seems to suggest that women are more likely to leave a mariage than men.\n\n[wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)\n\nOf course it's not a 100% proof: are lesbian women really behaving the same in relationships than heterosexual women but it's another piece of evidence just like the divorce initiation rate.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeglf4",
                    "author": "alwaysright12",
                    "body": "No, they're not\n\nLesbians tend to get married far quicker, much younger and have kids more than gay men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzefr4g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefxtz",
                    "author": "Irhien",
                    "body": "If anything, it would superficially seem that when a divorce is initiated by a woman, the reason the marriage failed was the husband. Non-superficially, I think it just means women more often expect their situation to improve with the divorce, which doesn't say much: could be the judges favoring women during divorces, could be that women are more often the victims of abuse, could be something else.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfj0su",
                    "author": "ReplyOk6720",
                    "body": "Sometimes, getting out of an emotionally unhealthy relationship, is an improvement enough. Many a woman leaving with nothing ng than the clothes on her back, in a shelter. Being alive is an \"improvement\".\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzefxtz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzega2c",
                    "author": "Afghan_Ninja",
                    "body": "It's only been ~50yrs since women weren't able to get mortgages, own credit cards, etc. cheating is hard to prove legally sans video evidence, and abuse (physical, verbal, & emotional) was also mainstream and not often seen as genuine abuse. It is a fact that women have been suffering through unhealthy relationships for the majority of our nation's existence.\n\nFrom an incel perspective, women not continuing to suffer is their problem and not an issue with the relationship itself. Thus women choosing to pursue divorce is a problem of \"allowing\" women agency. \n\nYou won't get a salient counter view from anyone not espousing a deeply ahistorical and misogynistic worldview. And such ppl aren't worthy of consideration, past condemnation.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzejub1",
                    "author": "Admirable_Example524",
                    "body": "Check your timeline 50 years ago was 1974.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzega2c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzegbro",
                    "author": "INFPneedshelp",
                    "body": "It also means they are the one to start the paperwork process.\u00a0\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeh6yw",
                    "author": "LilSliceRevolution",
                    "body": "Yeah, filing the paperwork alone means nothing. It could be that the other partner is busier or whatever. The woman could not be the one who wants the divorce but still be the one to file the paperwork.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "kzegbro"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzegizj",
                    "author": "Hour-Beautiful-9804",
                    "body": "How dare she take umbrage at my bad behaviour?!? Lol. Perps victim blaming - this is the modern mood. People feeing oppressed because they aren\u2019t allowed to oppress the people they traditionally oppress. One spouse behaves badly and the other is supposed to just put up with it. Nope. No. If one spouse cheats and the other doesn\u2019t want to put up with it they are not the cause because they don\u2019t want to see their spouse run around. And frankly if people don\u2019t want to be married for any reason that\u2019s fine. It doesn\u2019t have to be a failure or a tragedy. That\u2019s just religious people running around wanting life to be some opera.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzff2zu",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": "This is my opinion to. A marriage were one person is being mistreated, or they're both extremely unhappy, is a failure. Divorce would be an improvement in such situations. If someone thinks \"putting up with mistreatment or unhappiness in a marriage just for the sake of not getting a divorce\" makes them a better person, I'd think they were stupid.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzegizj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzehem0",
                    "author": "IronSavage3",
                    "body": "Where are \u201cthey\u201d getting that 80% statistic?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzehhn4",
                    "author": "LongDongSamspon",
                    "body": "On top of women initiating the vast majority of divorce, the lesbian divorce rate is higher than male female couples divorce rate - and the gay male divorce rate is the lowest of all. \n\nOn top of that studies have shown that those with more estrogen (even amongst women) are more likely to express dissatisfaction with a long term relationship.\n\nSo it\u2019s pretty clear if you\u2019re not living in denial that women are the main reason marriages fail - no men in lesbian marriage yet the divorce rate is even higher. As troubling as it may be for some to admit, all the evidence, statistical, anecdotal, and scientific, points to women simply getting tired of long term relationships more often than men.\n\nNow I don\u2019t necessarily think women cheat or abuse then leave more than men, but personally I do think that more often women have a type of feeling of growing less attracted over time and sometimes don\u2019t really understand why (though often they grow to think of the man as responsible and the media likes to portray it that way). \n\nHow often do you hear divorcing women saying \u201cwe\u2019ve\u201d grown apart, or it\u2019s not working. And what they really mean is they\u2019ve lost the feeling and can no longer bear to be touched or with their husband for reasons that aren\u2019t his fault and they can\u2019t help and don\u2019t really understand themselves.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 43,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzei3j6",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Lesbian women are different than straight women who are different from gay men who are different from straight men. Again unless we have the causes of the divorced ... \n\n\"How often do you hear...\" That's anecdotal. I don't hear that all that often. I mostly hear \"I perform all these services on top of work while he does nothing\". but I'm still not gonna base my opinion on my personal experience rather than the stats. \n\nSo you got the stats?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzehhn4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzej1yg",
                    "author": "JayNotAtAll",
                    "body": "I guess it's just a matter of perspective. If you see \"the cause of divorce\" being those who initiate it then you could argue that women are the biggest causes of divorce.\n\nIt is a very simplistic way to view it though as I think the people who just initiate divorce with no reason are in an extreme minority.\n\nA strong argument for why more women initiate divorce is pretty much what you alluded to. Historically, they had very little agency over their lives. Women couldn't have their own bank accounts until the 70s. Just one example over how women just had to deal with the hand they were dealt with. If they had a bad husband, tough shit, just become a mom who drinks wine at 11am.\n\nNow they have more agency over their lives.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf7hz9",
                    "author": "ModeMysterious3207",
                    "body": "And after marrying a guy for security, and a few years of being supported by him, you can divorce him, get a bunch of his assets, and have even more agency",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzej1yg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzejjbf",
                    "author": "Horror-Collar-5277",
                    "body": "Woman is supposed to steer relationship.\u00a0\n\n\nMan is supposed to do the work.\n\n\nSometimes woman steers relationship at the behest of fuck buddies instead of husband.\n\n\nIf we just get more people to hyphenate their names we can surely succeed in making the world more beautiful.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -23,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzek49h",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why are women supposed to steer? Why are men supposed to work. That's just nonsense in my opinion",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "kzejjbf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzejrxk",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "Red pills are assholes. They blame single mothers for their offspring shortcoming, while the absent father, who is the one slacking off, is some kind of victim of the system.\nI just can't justify changing your mind into red pill talking points. Its immoral.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf1ymg",
                    "author": "rizzla092",
                    "body": "You can believe they're assholes but it does not negate the fact that single fathers do significantly better than single mothers who raise degenerates in society.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzejrxk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzekkr6",
                    "author": "VanillaIsActuallyYum",
                    "body": "I'm confused by the premise, honestly. If women are initiating the divorce, does that not imply that the OTHER side is the reason for it? If I stop hanging out with friend X, isn't it generally safe to assume it's because friend X was toxic, not that \\*I\\* was toxic?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 159,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzekqv3",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. You could be a narcissist. And your friend wasn't worshipping you they way you wanted. We have no idea who is at fault.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 48,
                    "parent_id": "kzekkr6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzelqrb",
                    "author": "VenoVlade",
                    "body": "Women are more likely to end a relationship, because they no longer believe in soulmates. It\u2019s all about the quality of life in the relationship. There\u2019s no desire to suffer or struggle to rebuild or fix the marriage. Just end it and hop on some dick. \n\nMarried guys are much more willing to preserve and maintain. Because they\u2019re dumb enough to believe there is a \u2018one\u2019 out there for them and they\u2019ve already found her.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfp76w",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "No, men stay because they\u2019d rather just cheat but maintain their marriage and household because that\u2019s easier than being a single dad and paying child support and alimony. Women don\u2019t care about starting over so we leave.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzelqrb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzem0gv",
                    "author": "AmbergrisTeaspoon",
                    "body": "One could postulate that women have more to gain from divorce... Usually.\n\nAnd that fact is also, usually, based on choices that women make.. and then regret... usually.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfp9s2",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "Women don\u2019t regret their divorces. Most people don\u2019t.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzem0gv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzem2ud",
                    "author": "thecountnotthesaint",
                    "body": "Why is the divorce rate higher among lesbians compared to gay men? \n\nhttps://www.simpsonlaw.net/blog/2021/06/rate-of-divorce-for-gay-men-lower-than-for-lesbians/",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfg56f",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": "Imma go ahead and answer your question using your own source.\n\n\"While we see that **66 per cent of same-sex marriages were among females**, nearly three-quarters of same-sex divorces in 2019 were to female couples.\". More lesbian marriages compared to gay marriages to begin with.\n\n\"**Women also tend to get married faster than gay men** and are likelier to have **previously been married**.\" People who have been previously married are more likely to get divorced again, because of age and experience, divorce not feeling as threatening or daunting to go through as the first time etc. \n\n\"**Women do not tolerate marital misconduct** like adultery as much as men do.\" So women are less likely to put up with mistreatment, which is definitely a positive. \n\nAdd these all together, and you get the answer. Hope this helps!",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzem2ud"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzenlgw",
                    "author": "IrrationalDesign",
                    "body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\nIt could say 'women are more likely to initiate steps to break off unsatisfying marriages'. It doesn't say anything about staying in the marriage though, as every divorce 'releases' both parties from the marriage at the same time. It's not like men can stay in the marriages without a woman (obviously only talking about heterosexual marriages)\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzennqk",
                    "author": "Squiiiidwaaard",
                    "body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Heteros in the middle. Gays last. \n\nDisproves everything you just said lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzesqpa",
                    "author": "Thekurdishprince",
                    "body": "Based.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzennqk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeodbf",
                    "author": "GrayJedi1982",
                    "body": "What it DOES mean is that marriage is a bad business deal for most men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzff3oh",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeodbf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeogdq",
                    "author": "BeamTeam032",
                    "body": "It's a stat that conservatives use to blame women for why the divorce rate is so high. As if a man would file for divorce after he cheats on her, or goes into a drunken rage and beats the shit out of her. lmao. \n\nIt's like abortion. It's not the mans fault she got preggo, it's her fault for opening her legs. But if it's her fault, she still doesn't get a say because abortion is wrong. lmao. It's like they want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and not have to be forced to take responsibility. But that's most conservatives I know.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfppwy",
                    "author": "Znyper",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/BeamTeam032 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BeamTeam032&message=BeamTeam032%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzeogdq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeogdq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeowxy",
                    "author": "That_North_1744",
                    "body": "Infidelity does not necessarily result in divorce. There are many varying factors that also contribute to the marital breakdown. \nFinances, children, health, abuse, desertion, religion, external family issues, employment changes, priorities differ, etc.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeppdl",
                    "author": "GazBB",
                    "body": "Post seems to be in bad faith as the premise itself is false.\n\nI've never seen people, amass, at least in recent times, blaming the women for initiating divorces. In fact it's the opposite. Women get plenty of sympathy.\n\nYou often hear that women talk about how they fell out of love or checked out of the relationship **a long time ago** and things were just getting dragged along. And then you have a ton of people blaming the said woman's husband and how he apparently abused her or wasn't a good husband to begin with which led to her falling out of love.\n\nIn fact in reality, unless there's actual abuse, women who checked out of the marriage a long time ago should be 100% blamed for terrible communication. It shows that they never valued the relationship and simply tagged along for the ride.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf02ng",
                    "author": "lizcicle",
                    "body": "It is possible that the underlying issues *were* communicated but the other party refused to acknowledge/address them - in fact, this is *often* presented as the case in one way or another. You did give a pass to \"actual abuse\", so this is more like refusing to pull their weight in re: household tasks/rearing children/financial contribution/physical intimacy.\n\n\"Hey, can you stop cheating on me/frothing with rage when I don't buy you flowers every fifteen minutes? It hurts my feelings. Let's see a counsellor and work through our problems.\"  \n\"No lol sounds like a you problem. Fuck your feelings, I'm having fun.\"\n\nI do agree that if the above isn't the case, then the fault lies more on the person who gave up before proposing any kind of solution.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzeppdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzepzkm",
                    "author": "BigKadoLBx",
                    "body": "Women want their cake and eat it too....\n\nOf course they are the reason a majority of marriages don't last. Give up the beaver \ud83e\uddab and stop whining all the time good grief...",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfez4t",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzepzkm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeq2tv",
                    "author": "Pale_Zebra8082",
                    "body": "After reading through several comments and your responses, I believe this will be difficult to resolve because we don\u2019t all share the same sense of what the \u201creason\u201d for divorce is, primarily. Nor do we all have a shared view of what would constitute a sufficient problem to reasonably warrant initiating a divorce. \n\nIn each case, there are the inciting problems themselves, or claimed problems. Then there is the tolerance for said problem and the commitment to enduring the problem and desire to work through it. Both are factors in the \u201creason\u201d a divorce happens. \n\nYou are repeatedly referring to the former, while many commenters are referring to the latter. \n\nI agree with you that it\u2019s unclear whether men or women are more likely to be the source of the \u201cproblem\u201d. However, it does seem clear that women are much more likely to hit the threshold of giving up on the marriage in the face of the problem than men are. \n\nAs a result, on average, women are contributing to the divorce rate more than men, based solely on that difference. \n\nNow, this does not entail a value judgement on them. One may believe that they are correct to draw the line where they do and think it\u2019s right for them to cut their losses and walk more readily. But that\u2019s a separate question from whether or not they are the \u201creason\u201d for the divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeqj2w",
                    "author": "MrGraeme",
                    "body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nThey're happening because women are initiating divorce. The underlying reason isn't relevant because the relationship hasn't *failed* until one or more partners opt out (file for divorce, etc). That's what kills the relationship. Everything up until that point is conflict within relationships.\n\nThe problem you'll face when seeking a *reason* is that *reasons* go the whole way down. Watch:\n\n1. Man divorces woman. Reason: She cheated on him.\n\n2. Woman cheats on man. Reason: He wasn't giving her the attention she needed.\n\n3. Man wasn't giving attention to woman. Reason: She demanded he work two jobs.\n\n4. Woman demanded man work two jobs. Reason: He had to support the family while he stayed home with the kids.\n\nWe could keep going, but the point that I'm making is that you can pick any arbitrary \"reason\" for the breakdown of a relationship. Ultimately, the *reason* isn't what causes the relationship to fail - terminating the relationship is what causes the relationship to fail. \n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nUnsatisfactory is not an objective measurement. It's entirely dependent on what the individual person considers unsatisfactory. If *your* definition of unsatisfactory causes you to break up with your partner, then you're the reason the relationship failed. \n\nThe exception to this is conditional relationships, where both parties have a clear and mutually agreed upon understanding of what behaviours or actions will terminate the relationship. Violating a condition in such a relationship could be considered the same as terminating the relationship.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzex4yd",
                    "author": "lizcicle",
                    "body": "Wouldn't your last paragraph be more the rule than the exception, at least in North America/most western countries? Often wedding vows themselves will specifically mention \"faithfulness/constant faith\" (not cheating), \"sickness and health\", \"love and cherish\" (not abusing each other), etc. *Generally* when people step outside marriages or abuse/assault their partners here it's frowned upon and considered a violation of the metaphorical \"contract\" of marriage. Someone opts out of that contract by breaking their word/vow. \n\nI do understand, however, that there are other cultures where fucking around or enduring some form of what we would call abuse in one way or another is considered just part of a marriage, but from what accounts I've heard, the divorce rates in those cases/countries is much lower - ie. the \"contract\" isn't being broken, it's just part of the deal. (disclaimer: haven't checked those stats, anecdotal evidence, i've been wrong at least 2 or 3 times in my life before and it could be the case here)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzeqj2w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeqjfa",
                    "author": "IceBlue",
                    "body": "No idea why you think anyone has any valid argument against this. People who file for divorce are usually the ones that feel aggrieved so it makes no sense to act like they are the reason why the relationship went sour.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2otf",
                    "author": "YetteMan",
                    "body": "For my divorce, I filed the paperwork even though I did not want a divorce because my ex wife moved in with her parents and wouldn\u2019t let me see my daughter for months. I filed specifically to get a court order forcing her to give me access to my daughter and since it was started in my name it stayed that way.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzeqjfa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeqpm2",
                    "author": "Deaf-Leopard1664",
                    "body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\n\nAnd all this says is, women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages, they themselves more than  possibly ruined/were the a\\*holes in. So when it became unsatisfactory as consequences for their behavior, they naturally wanted out. This could easily make 60% out of your 80%, we never know.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfomdj",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "What? People are equally responsible for making unhappy marriages. It is not a sex thing and you all sound like little incels trying to blame one or the other.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeqpm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzer33z",
                    "author": "underboobfunk",
                    "body": "It means the opposite as far as I\u2019m concerned.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfexat",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzer33z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzery04",
                    "author": "jdaddy15911",
                    "body": "This probably isn\u2019t going to change your view, but I interpreted the data the same way. I thought, \u201cSo. That means 80% of men do some dumb shit.\u201d",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzese6u",
                    "author": "ManYonX",
                    "body": "It makes sense.  In general men pay alimony.   If I'm in an unhappy marriage and I get money coming in to bail, I'm tsjong the money.  Divorce initiating is aligned to economic incentives.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeszhf",
                    "author": "Sweaty_Condition6293",
                    "body": "Quite literally, by definition, it is the reason they fail. STFU",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeziea",
                    "author": "Icy_Sunlite",
                    "body": "Not by definition. If a man is actively committing adultery or constantly getting drunk and beating up his wife to the point of near death, for example, he is at least just as much to blame.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeszhf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzet0az",
                    "author": "FugakuWickedEyes",
                    "body": "Divorce happens because both man and woman succumb to desire. It could be another person, another life, etc. The reason women initiate divorce slightly more is because it is more socially acceptable for them to do so. Fortunately I see men and women be equal very soon, which should \n\n\\- decrease marriages\n\n\\- even out who initiates divorces",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzettci",
                    "author": "Physical-Bus6025",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not meant to imply they\u2019re in the wrong. When red pillers use that argument, it\u2019s to simply note women 80% of the time end relationships.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeumth",
                    "author": "MLeek",
                    "body": "This stat says nothing about who is \u201cat fault\u201d and everything about who does the labour of filing. \n\nAnd that part shouldn\u2019t be at all surprising.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzev3qf",
                    "author": "Ok_Deal7813",
                    "body": "Women, as a collective group, pick partners based on emotion rather than logic, so they partner with dirt bags often, and women are also fickle so they'll quit on a marriage easier. Either way, being divorced is a huge red flag.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfoqr6",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "The fuck?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzev3qf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzev4ko",
                    "author": "neverknowwhatsnext",
                    "body": "Men cheat. Women betray.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfeugb",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzev4ko"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexess",
                    "author": "Hot-Collection3273",
                    "body": "This is a pretty popular viewpoint. I thought it was well known and documented that women have better support systems that allow them to leave marriages easier.\n\nHow do you even characterize someone being \u201cat fault\u201d in a divorce on a moral level? \n\nOn some base level, yes the person who files is at fault for the divorce. They made the character judgement and decided to get married, then decided their judgement was wrong and warranted a divorce. \n\nIs it their fault the marriage was shitty enough to warrant the filing? Can\u2019t really determine that based on who filed",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexljv",
                    "author": "Objective_Reality42",
                    "body": "Women\u2019s tolerance for discomfort in a relationship is significantly lower than men. Their sense of commitment and loyalty to their children\u2019s future and well being is secondary to their own selfish need to see if the grass is greener. \nWomen initiate the divorce due to the court system heavily favoring them, but usually end up less happy than those who fixed their marriage instead of running away. \nA failed relationship is defined by the outcome. Women filing for divorce is evidence of their own failure to work things out rather than put in a legitimate effort to fix things. Therefore women are at fault for the marriage failing the majority of the time. The commitment you make when getting married is to work things through side by side through thick and thin. Filing is an admission you made a promise you can\u2019t live up to.\n\nStay single, kings. Marriage is way too risky.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4y20",
                    "author": "Beneficial-Gur-8136",
                    "body": "Yes. Please stay single.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "kzexljv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexrrz",
                    "author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
                    "body": "From a strictly logical standpoing, you're correct that women mainly filing for divorce does not necessarily mean they are the reason the relationship/mariage has failed.    \n\n\nHowever, it \\*does\\* strongly indicate that women are the ones primaily giving up on failing relationships, instead of sticking around and working on them.  (You basically acknowledge as much when you note women being the ones leaving unsatisfactory marriages.  I'm guessing most marriages are unsatisfactory at some point to men, which is a big reason many cheat.)  \n\n\nThe burden of persuation/proof should therefore be on you, or anyone else claiming men are the primary problem, to explain why men are usually causing relationships to fail, with women simply responding to completly dead marriages when they file for divorce.    \n\n\n(Many men are caught completely off guard when their wife leaves.  Meaning that even if she was unhappy, she never really articulated it to the guy, or indicated the importance of desired changes.)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf0es8",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I never claim men are the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzexrrz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexwj5",
                    "author": "JohnConradKolos",
                    "body": "Trying to \"win\" and say \"women are blah blah\" or \"men are blah blah\" doesn't seem overly productive.\n\nBut it might be useful to understand how men and women behave differently in some scenarios.\n\nTwo ideas for understanding this better, so that we all might be a bit more comfortable with how the world is, and so we can be kind to one another.\n\n1. Consider the flip side of your statement: \"women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\"  It might be something like:  \"men are more likely to stay in unsatisfactory marriages and try to fix them rather than dissolve them.\"   But, as you point out, this doesn't give us any information about why the marriage was unsatisfactory in the first place.  If men are less likely to initiate divorce, perhaps they have more resilience in the face of some hardship, or perhaps they are just easier to please and find more marriages \"satisfactory\".\n\n2.  One option for trying to get a control group would be to look at same sex couples.  Do gay couples or lesbian couples get divorced more or less frequently than each other, or heterosexual marriages? \n\nIt appears as if lesbians couples get divorced about twice as frequently as gay couples. \n\nVia this Wikipedia link: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce\\_of\\_same-sex\\_couples#:\\~:text=The%20lesbian%20divorce%20rate%20is,Male%20divorce%20rate%20%3D%207%25).\n\nThe lesbian divorce rate is much higher than the divorce rate between men: in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year (i.e., Lesbian divorce rate = 14%, Gay Male divorce rate = 7%).[^(\\[14\\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#cite_note-14)\n\nSo, while it is possible that women divorce men because of unsatisfactory behavior, other men seem to satisfied.  Also, women not only find being married to a man unsatisfactory, they also find being married to a women unsatisfactory.\n\nAgain, the point of any of this should not be to be judgmental, but rather we should seek to be understanding.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfej7l",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": ">in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year\n\nI don't know if this is included in the study you referenced, I don't speak Dutch so I couldn't read it, but it's important to note that lesbian marriages are way more common in the Netherlands than gay marriages.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzexwj5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexxg6",
                    "author": "LegacyLivesOnGP",
                    "body": "I believe cheating between men and women are about equal. There is a perceived economic benefit in many cases for a woman to initiate divorce so if she finds another partner she will formalize the divorce. But if a man finds another partner he will keep it on the low with the reverse occurring: an incentive to remain in the marriage.\n\n\nSo I dont think the right conversation is to determine who to allocate blame to. That just results in a gender war. The discussion is more, who has the most to gain from a divorce? Would men divorce equal to women if they had the same incentives? My theory is yes",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexyrd",
                    "author": "KorLee",
                    "body": "I wholeheartedly agree with your statetment that divorce percentages do not equate to who was at fault. However, I think clarification on what you define as \"fail\" is necessary. \n\nA relationship could be \"failed\" while the two members of the party are still legally married. If 80%, or more accurately 69% of divorces are initiated by women, would it be fair to say that women are the majority of why relationships *end*? \n\nBy approaching it in this light, it not only acknowledges that there may be many reasons to why the relationship \"failed\" in the first place, while also acknowledging the statistic that women initiate divorces substantially higher than men. It's a more neutral way of looking at the statistic as we don't place blame on whos fault the divorce was.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzey6rj",
                    "author": "Own_Set_6148",
                    "body": "Most divorces and break ups are not due to cheating.\u00a0\n\nWomen are more emotional and affected by social pressure. It\u2019s very common for them to make decisions based off of what their female friends and even social media tell them is \u201cright\u201d.\u00a0\n\nThen you have western culture telling women that they don\u2019t need a man and encouraging separation and independence when they don\u2019t get what they want.\u00a0\n\nMarriage is a losing proposition for western men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfcp2g",
                    "author": "Itchy-Status3750",
                    "body": "Lmfao it\u2019s a losing proposition when you\u2019re a jackass. Women are not more emotional just because you think so.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "kzey6rj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeyf0t",
                    "author": "Terrible_Length007",
                    "body": "Well when generally the man will lose much more than the women in the divorce of course they are more hesitant.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeykl8",
                    "author": "bad-brains13",
                    "body": "Recent data provided by the mental health community reports that individuals or couples seeking help due infidelity, nearly 70% of the infidelity was committed by the female within heterosexual relationships.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfbnrc",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": "Source?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzeykl8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeywcg",
                    "author": "thegreatmaster7051",
                    "body": "Aren't lesbians the most likely to get divorced?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzez5wq",
                    "author": "Happy_Weakness_1144",
                    "body": "I think your proposition can be disproved pretty simply, actually.\n\nYour position presumes a rational, reasonable, suite of standards and if those aren't met, she ends the marriage.\n\nThat's a tautology. You can't assume that the standards are rational, or reasonable.\n\nThe fault for someone failing to meet a standard can be because of BOTH parties. One can fail to meet reasonable standards, and another can set standards most people cannot meet.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 22,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf03mm",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I literally mentioned that. The fault can be the woman the man or neither",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzez5wq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzezjz6",
                    "author": "bad-brains13",
                    "body": "Although I\u2019m not entirely sure how accurate the numbers are, it\u2019s widely reported that lesbian marriages end in divorce almost most twice as often as heterosexual marriages.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzezpf7",
                    "author": "Fantactic1",
                    "body": "The 80% stats aren\u2019t necessarily to prove who broke the relationship (if it\u2019s mostly one person).  \n\nRather, it\u2019s to prove the point that women can feel confident they\u2019ll be getting the better end of the deal in divorce proceedings.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf25kr",
                    "author": "goldyacht",
                    "body": "Well initiating divorce imo is the reason for the relationship failing, as once you\u2019re at that point it\u2019s likely over. It\u2019s also easier for women to divorce as they are less likely come out on the losing end if you look at it this way. \n\nYears ago if a women with kids divorced they probably would have had it pretty rough but that\u2019s not the case anymore. Now more than likely they will get the kids, half or more of family assets, child support or alimony etc. Compared to men who will likely lose their kids, half their assets and still have to contribute financially to a partner who they are no longer with. It\u2019s not really a great deal for men. \n\nRelationships work because both parties benefit but after marriage for a man it\u2019s unlikely he will be in a great spot after a divorce especially if kids are involved. A lot of women also have better support systems than men and will no longer have to deal with things like housework for a husband which is an added benefit as most women will probably be doing the brunt of it. \n\nWhile I don\u2019t think the sole reason is always on women, I do think they are in a lot better position to leave marriage then most men so they will likely take that option more times than men who probably believe their life will get worse whether the relationship is greatest or not.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2bv4",
                    "author": "Turbulent_Emu_637",
                    "body": "\"to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.\" \\*unless of course I change my mind. no big. - 80% of women?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2ncd",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Have you looked through the peoples vow and if it includes till death do we part?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf2bv4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2if1",
                    "author": "meadowbelle",
                    "body": "The talking point re: women initiring divorce is simply to attempt to shame women for having a backbone and leaving. It's not often mentioned that women will do this, even at great financial cost and knowing they'll need to do most of the childcare solo, which says to me that the situation they are in is pretty damn bad",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2iqf",
                    "author": "lumberjack_jeff",
                    "body": "Perhaps not, but it is strong evidence that contrary to popular opinion, women don't think they are harmed by divorce as much as men do.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2mck",
                    "author": "Knave7575",
                    "body": "Women initiate divorces because they have the most the gain.  The disparity reflects the unfairness of the family law system rather than who is to \u201cblame\u201d.  \n\nA competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time.  At best, she walks away with the kids and child support, and is free to remarry.   \n\nA competent father at best will get the kids half the time (unless the mother is an epic screwup).   Even worse, the father has a reasonable chance of losing the kids entirely, which is emotionally and financially devastating.  \n\nIf either parent was just as likely to end up with the kids, divorces would probably be equally initiated by both men and women.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfbjo4",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": ">A competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time.\n\nCorrection, [will at worst be murdered.](https://vawnet.org/sc/scope-problem-intimate-partner-homicide-statistics)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf2mck"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2sb3",
                    "author": "Flimsy_Dimension_958",
                    "body": "My husband wanted me to do all the work for the divorce. He didn't want to be with me but didn't want to divorce?? So I get it. In my experience they want to be seen as \"See! I tried everything and she still left\"",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzncajl",
                    "author": "MzFrazzle",
                    "body": "When I finally got the divorce done my ex said \"whew, that was a mission!\"\n\nFOR WHOM????? I did all the paperwork, went to the sheriff of the court twice (my ex moved to a new district), couriered the paperwork myself between the court departments, went to court twice (alone). \n\nMy ex's tag line was \"I was going to do that\" - especially when the dishes were growing blue mould by the time I cracked and did them. Getting a dishwasher did not improve the situation.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzf2sb3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf38jh",
                    "author": "ilivalkyw",
                    "body": "No fault divorces are the reason. There is financial gain to be had by wrecking a marriage and then walking away from it. A woman can cheat, leave her husband, and take all his stuff...and kids. So, lots do.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf3j5r",
                    "author": "rudster",
                    "body": "I don't think even your cheating point would answer the question. A lot of marriages have dead bedrooms. Does a partner who \"cheats\" on their spouse who refused sex for a year, because that partner smells bad to them, because the other partner is on medication, because their partner because because...\n\nPoint being people are complicated, and there's no simple stat that can assign fault. \n\nThere are some hints that can guide one's intuition. Like what happens to the divorce rate after certain events, like sudden change of income, medical diagnosis, etc",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf3vfq",
                    "author": "InterestMost4326",
                    "body": "No, it means women are more likely to consider a marriage unsatisfactory on an earlier part of its decline than men. And more likely to consider even a marriage whose quality is stagnant, unsatisfactory.\n\nSo if a marriage is declining, on average the woman will sound the alarm earlier than the man.\n\nThe woman isn't right or wrong, women are just naturally more sensitive to and aware of negative things than men, because they're more vulnerable. The psychological research bears this out.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf40gp",
                    "author": "claratheresa",
                    "body": "Why would men ever file? They would lose all the benefits of marriage and would have to split assets. By forcing it on her to file after her tolerating his shitty behavior he can stall and play the victim.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf443f",
                    "author": "die_eating",
                    "body": "It takes two to tango.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzonpp8",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/die_eating \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20die_eating&message=die_eating%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzf443f/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf443f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4jbt",
                    "author": "inkstickart2017",
                    "body": "Uh, why do you want to change your view?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4jlx",
                    "author": "reddituserjl",
                    "body": "Correlation is not causation, looking at only who initiates divorce means little to nothing about why a divorce happened. Ice cream sales go up with crime, the real reason? People steal more in the summer. Unless you have a source where divorced people are put in a study and then data is analyzed there\u2019s no substance for who and why marriages fail and where the blame is from.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4zf5",
                    "author": "ShoalsCreek",
                    "body": "My ex would have rather tried to kill me again for the fourth time than get a divorce. Had to leave in the middle of the night. Best decision for both of us.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhygjw",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf4zf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf5kmt",
                    "author": "Curious_Working5706",
                    "body": "Someone said this to me the other day. Like, they genuinely believe that women are 100% at fault for \u201cending the marriage\u201d because they have decided to start the proceedings for divorce (usually after something their husbands have done).\n\nThis is like saying that women are at fault for their men going to prison for beating them to near death because *they* decided to dial 911.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf61yi",
                    "author": "ModeMysterious3207",
                    "body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nIn other words, women are more likely to be faithless and abandon their marriages as soon as their husbands aren't useful.\n\n> So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nWomen marry for security and safety.  Once they are able to provide those for themselves they no longer need a husband.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf6dri",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Source.. On useful\n\nAgain source.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf61yi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf676b",
                    "author": "adw802",
                    "body": "Women may not be to blame for why a relationship is failing but the statistic does prove that it is overwhelmingly women that are giving up on failing relationships. Not a moral judgement - it could be that some women have very good reason to call it quits.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf6lgo",
                    "author": "Purple_Screen3628",
                    "body": "The demise of a relationship is the fault of both people.. degrees and levels of fault varies.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf7fez",
                    "author": "ILoveAnAsianBilat",
                    "body": "Men are not more likely to cheat.. that's a common misconception. Women cheat just as often and they are less likely to get caught. Women are more careful because the financial fallout of cheating is usually more pronounced for them. So that skews the statistics. Women cheat just as often.\n\nAs far as divorce being initiated.. it is true that women initiate a much higher percentage of divorces. Since they cheat as much as men, it seems like you said, they are just less willing to stay in unsatisfactory relationships. Men are more willing to maintain the status quo and keep things they way they are.. despite not being happy. That doesn't mean one party is more at fault than the other. It just means women are more willing to call it quits sooner under the same circumstances than men are. I'm not sure of the psychology behind this.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf8guu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Cheating just as often. Citation?\n\nThat said i can agree fault is not always one or the other",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "kzf7fez"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf7ty2",
                    "author": "Smergmerg432",
                    "body": "I feel like red pill can swap any thing around. If they\u2019re the ones who finally get fed up enough to divorce, it sounds like men are the ones who keep messing up. (Obviously, not true all round, but failing to see the logic beyond victim blaming)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf8jmn",
                    "author": "linqingfeng810",
                    "body": "While it's true that women initiate the majority of divorces, this statistic alone doesn't explain the complexities behind the reasons for relationship breakdowns. It's important to consider the social, emotional, and financial factors that contribute to such decisions. Often, women may face societal pressures or have less financial independence, which can delay the decision to initiate divorce even when the relationship is already failing. Additionally, the initiation of divorce does not necessarily imply fault or blame on one party; it could simply be an acknowledgment that the relationship is no longer sustainable for both individuals involved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf9jn7",
                    "author": "popobono",
                    "body": "Read your own post\n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages \n\nYou just disproved your own belief using the exact argument you\u2019re trying to disprove. You said women are unsatisfied easier thus they leave more. This is the general redpill argument on why women are at fault, because they are portrayed as being \u201ceternally incapable of being satisfied\u201d",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzj7szm",
                    "author": "Prestigious-Phase131",
                    "body": "They didn't say women are more likely to not be satisfied, they said they're more likely to end the marriage when unsatisfied.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf9jn7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfa78u",
                    "author": "supastyles",
                    "body": "Your CMV uses a statistic at odds with your \"view\", then uses hypothetical anecdotal scenarios to back up your \"view\".\nThen ask for empirical data to convince you!?\n\nYour \"view\" is a baseless opinion that you are asking anyone to sway you.  \n\nYou started this conversation and brought up *A* stat and provided 0 actual reasons why it is wrong, or why your view is right.  \n\n\nI'm definitely not a red pill but that's Just Lazy! (You're starting out by making them look good, \ud83d\ude14)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfc5pu",
                    "author": "Salty_Sky5744",
                    "body": "If anything I\u2019d say this is proof that they\u2019re usually not the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfch8w",
                    "author": "thapussypatrol",
                    "body": "Hypergamy dictates that women will have a higher tendency in the current age to separate from their partners (current age = women now have equal economic status yet more than equal access to sex/relationships); men aren't hypergamous; they're not even necessarily more infidelious because cheating as a men is naturally more challenging than cheating as a woman, seeing as men are *way* more likely to say yes to casual (or even more serious yet scandalous) sex than women are in society. Women with hypergamy, being more picky, means that they're also more likely to be less satisfied with what they have compared with men whom tend to be a lot more centred, confident and satisfied with their lives on balance; men tend to find their own happiness whereas women tend to require it provided by their relationship/partner (sorry, that's not that controversial)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzguhue",
                    "author": "zouss",
                    "body": "Lol you really are throwing out pseudoscientific bullshit like it's proven fact. \"Women are hypergamous and more emotional\" where's your evidence for this bro? For a rational man you don't seem to have much critical thinking ability",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "kzfch8w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfftp1",
                    "author": "Electrical_King4147",
                    "body": "The belief stems from the idea that women hold the power to initiate relationships primarily, since they are the gender who is in higher demand ie men pursue women primarily, women are seen as the prize rather than men as an aggregate. If you look at it from that angle it means that a relationship happens because of a woman's choice, who she chooses for herself, therefor if the relationship fails for whatever reason it is her fault as well since the relationship exists as a result of her choice ie she either picked really badly and had enough, or she picked well and treated that person really badly therefor drove him away. Them starting most divorces means the former of picking badly and then choosing to leave therefor it is ultimately her fault.\n\n  \nObviously it's a hyper simplified logic but if you look at it from that perspective then yea ok. If she wanted x, she should have found someone who also wanted x and not y and been clear about what she wanted in a relationship and made sure the other person also wanted that too. Obviously people can lie, and people can also miss signs or be naive.\n\n  \nIt's basically placing blame. Sometimes someone is more at fault for something ending than the other person, sometimes it's no ones fault, sometimes its everyones fault. For whatever reason women are the ones who are doing most of the divorcing. I'm assuming guys who don't like marriage or want commitment will avoid it. Maybe there's some guys who are loyal to a fault and getting divorced by trashy wives who scapegoat them, maybe there's some guys who are the misogyny classic trope and as soon as they get married turn into a megadouche and eventually get divorce. Who knows. If you wanna know the intricate details of every situation you need cameras everywhere. It's otherwise anecdote and conjecture.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfg2l9",
                    "author": "SnooPandas2078",
                    "body": "I think a lot of people are kind of missing what OP is saying...\n\nThat filing for divorce =/= ruining the relationship.\n\nDamn.\n\nI agree with OP.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfgm4e",
                    "author": "RealisticLime8665",
                    "body": "This is the view of every woman with a cluster B personality disorder.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfhnwu",
                    "author": "LucinaIsMyTank",
                    "body": "That\u2019s a lot of mental gymnastics for that one captain. A better argument would be how women probably are quicker at realizing when relationships are unhealthy due to genetics giving them higher EQ.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfhpii",
                    "author": "Organic_Muffin280",
                    "body": "Women destroy the relationship because they are the more emotionally oriented ones. But men screw up by getting lazy and make women lose their feelings",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfi6wl",
                    "author": "Sc00tzy",
                    "body": "I bet men would initiate more if they didn\u2019t typically lose half their shit in the process",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzncfn9",
                    "author": "MzFrazzle",
                    "body": "They 'lose half their shit' because their wives sacrifice their careers, health and earning potential for years raising offspring.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfi6wl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfi8ms",
                    "author": "Arervia",
                    "body": "Women get money when they divorce, that's why they do it, the law is rigged for them to initiate divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfjouo",
                    "author": "Critical_Sherbet7427",
                    "body": "80% is a percentage too high",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfk4yl",
                    "author": "underboobfunk",
                    "body": "Isn\u2019t it typically the wronged party who files for divorce?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgp5ln",
                    "author": "KGmagic52",
                    "body": "No. Look up no fault divorce. She files just because \"she's not happy\" anymore.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfk4yl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfkrxn",
                    "author": "Naus1987",
                    "body": "I always figured it was because men initiate relationships. \n\nPeople who initiate always want the relationship more than the receiver. So they\u2019re less likely to call it quits.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkikpi",
                    "author": "GloomyOffice6002",
                    "body": "Nice display of willful blindness to the fact the social script - for both men AND women - is still written such that men are the pursuers. Women can only \"gatekeep\" to the men who approach their gate. Touch grass.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfkrxn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfm0so",
                    "author": "Sn0fight",
                    "body": "In my opinion men are much more comfortable staying miserable.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfn62v",
                    "author": "jakeofheart",
                    "body": "Lesbian divorces have a 65% to 75% divorce rate.\n\nIf it\u2019s even worse when you remove men from the equation, then it\u2019s likely that men are not the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhm0n2",
                    "author": "youvelookedbetter",
                    "body": "There are lots of other factors that go into those situations though. You can't actually compare heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages (which have not been around for that long) in good faith.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfn62v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfn9qd",
                    "author": "Kfrr",
                    "body": "70%*  \n\nIt's still an alarming statistic, especially when you couple it with the fact that 79.9% of custodial parents are women.  \n\nStatistically speaking, entering a marriage from a man's perspective means that you have a 40% chance to divorce. Of that 40%, there a 70% chance that it was initiated by the woman and an 80% chance she gets the kids.  \n\nRegardless of the *reason* that a y specific marriage might fail, there's always going to be bad eggs that know they're significantly more likely to get the kids if they decide they don't want to be with the man anymore.  \n\nTerrifying statistics, especially from a dude's perspective.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfnin8",
                    "author": "KitchenSchool1189",
                    "body": "Most of the women I've known are self possessed malcontents. Fortunately for me my wife and her friends are not in that category.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfp09o",
                    "author": "Digitalanalogue_",
                    "body": "In lesbian marriages theyre 100%. Soo\u2026.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfqnwy",
                    "author": "MGT1111",
                    "body": "Women don't file for divorce in unsatisfsctory marriage but they file for divorce in whatever mariages they are, satisfactory too. They file for divorce because the system aims at favoring women, is set at destroying men, and made it a profitable business for the women. Having divorced the man, they can get his money, take his children, continue to the next man, divorce him and so on while still getting state money. All it shows, it's women having zero commitment to working on their marriage but once the slightest problem has occurred running away and only exploiting the system which is happy in doing so. \n\nEven, in theory the claim was true and women divorce in unsatisfactory marriages, the lack of symmetry only shows the bias in female favour as men have to stay in marriages even when being abused by women,  being cheated on by them, exploited, taken advantage and so on. This has nothing to do with redpilled men, oh, no, but it has to do with the attempt of silencing everyone with the claim of them being redpilled which is a common misandrist tactic applied by man hating feminists. The question and subsequently reason of why relationships fail is more pervasive than this statistic but can be attributed to the same source. For men it's simply about risk management and this statistic is just a smal fraction in the big picture and puzzle \n\nIn our world, of course, it is o.k.to blame man for everything, no matter what it is but to criticize women well that's a blasphemy against the holy supreme gender who never does wrong. I actually do not want to change your mind. It's like to ask a racist to stop hating whatever group of people they dislike. The truth is that women file tbe majority of divorces is that women are the most priviliged group of society and can afford it. The ones that can't afford it, don't file for divorce or are unable to do it even if they want. Well, that's upsets you, the break up of the status quo, that someone dares to criticize women too and not only men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfrwle",
                    "author": "Texan2116",
                    "body": "I wonder if....this has to do with the fact that the women,know they will be able to date pretty soon after?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfvr5e",
                    "author": "justtrashtalk",
                    "body": "too many men openly say they waited until she did. I KNOW some who did. women are, more emotional sure, more emotionally intelligent than men. they know when its over....some men are: I'm not hitting you, not abusing you, not cheating, this is fine. women got a limited time to find a spouse, men can conceive into their 80's.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfvrz0",
                    "author": "Environmental-Ad5551",
                    "body": "Men and women are similarly unfaithful, unpleasant, and duplicitous. On the other hand, women are far more likely to be awarded custody in any contested divorce. Thats the real reason: women have less to lose.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kznh1zq",
                    "author": "freakydeku",
                    "body": "men simply give women custody\u2026",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzfvrz0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfxrtm",
                    "author": "Old-Sock-9321",
                    "body": "It may mean they are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages. It may also mean they have a much lower threshold for what they deem an unsatisfactory marriage. The latter could be mean the women are at fault, since marriage is supposed to be through thick and thin.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfyv65",
                    "author": "Total_Yankee_Death",
                    "body": "Across multiple countries lesbian marriages are [substantially more likely to end in divorce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#Divorce_rates) than gay male or heterosexual marriages. \n\nThere's a common denominator here and it isn't men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgt2tv",
                    "author": "88NORMAL_J",
                    "body": "I still haven't seen a decent rebuttal against this point yet",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfyv65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfyvm2",
                    "author": "tulipthegreycat",
                    "body": "There weren't as many divorces before because women didn't have rights. It is very hard to leave when you can't own property or have your own bank account. Or if the most money you can make is 50% lower than a man's. \n\nWomen initiate divorces because they can and no longer need to put up with mens terrible behaviors. \n\nMen have to catch up on learning how to behave like equal, respectful, loving partners. Many of which weren't raised to be that way. \n\nIn the future, it will become 50/50, but it will take years of society growing and forcing men to behave as equal partners and feel safe to behave as an equal partner without societal ridicule for that to change. Essentially, women's right and the ability to say no to men and provide for themselves instead is shifting faster than the societal shift for men to learn to respect women and treat them as equals in a relationship, and for men to feel safe acting to behave that way without ridicule. \n\nYou can see it in the reason why women leave. And you can see it in the slow shift that it isn't 80% of women initiating anymore. It is still more women than men, but it will take time for society to full shift as new generations of men are raised to treat their spouses as equals. \n\nAnd to be fair, I would like to point out that there are plenty of women who don't treat their partner equally, and have a toxic fake view feminism who think they are feminists, but are really misandrists. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if their husband's left them either. But as of now, there are more men who don't treat their partners right than women stemming from societal misogyny, which is, hopefully, slowly dying away. \n\nBoth women and men cheat. Both women and men can lose their libido. Both women and men can be disrespectful and distant. Both women and men can grow apart and change. But currently, men are more likely to push all the chores and child-rearing onto women, and men are more likely to be looked down on if they are not the bread winner or if they do chores and child-rearing. There's a lot of women power and women empowerment in society fighting misogyny. But there's not many people fighting how misogyny treats men poorly, too- there's needs to be more people fighting for men to feel safe to do traditionally feminine tasks so that when they aren't the breadwinner they don't break down and become assholes because of insecurities. They need to take initiative in maintaining their household with daily tasks and chores without being asked by just using their eyes to see what needs to be done. Neither person should be the one making lists of chores and asking the other to do them. It should be a conversation of all tasks that need to be done, and then you divide them evenly. And you understand that sometimes the other needs help - even if loading the dishwasher isn't your chore, you do it when the other person is sick so they can rest, and they do the same for you when you are sick. Even if someone is sick for a long period, chance are the other person will become sick for a long period at some point in their life too if you live long enough and stay together. Speaking of that, something like 90% (please find actual percentage, I read about it a while back) of men will divorce their wife if she develops a life-threatening illness. \n\nSo my opinion is that it comes down to misogyny within society that leads to men not acting as equal partners within a marriage for many reasons.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgv16x",
                    "author": "88NORMAL_J",
                    "body": "When it comes down to it the lesbian divorce rate is twice that of married gay men. There is no way to blame men for that. Women are worse then men at maintaining marriages. It's ok to say that you know. Women have higher pain tolerance then men. It's just differences it's okay for them to be there.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfyvm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfzni9",
                    "author": "AzureDreamer",
                    "body": "I think anyone with life experience can attest there are great fabulous reasons for divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg31xt",
                    "author": "Threash78",
                    "body": "We don't have to just look at straight couples. There is also the fact that lesbian couples have higher divorce rates than straight couples and straight couples have higher divorce rates than gay male couples. I mean, end of the day it depends on what you mean by \"reason\", if women start the majority of divorces then at it's more basic point they are the reason.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg4orv",
                    "author": "DamnColdVampires",
                    "body": "Alsoooo\u2026if I didn\u2019t take care of anything, nothing would ever have happened! From the beginning to the end of my marriage. So there\u2019s also that.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg51f0",
                    "author": "Winter_Ad4517",
                    "body": "If women are not the reason for majority of divorces then a marriage which has only men must have the highest divorces rate and marriages with only women must be the happiest.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg5mkp",
                    "author": "NYdude777",
                    "body": "Women initiate at a wildly higher rate because they have alot more to gain.  Many States have laws that HIGHLY favor the female monetarily and with custody when kids are involved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg64bz",
                    "author": "JesseDx",
                    "body": "It's not that either is more \"at fault\" but that men are more likely to get completely fucked over in divorce court (and thus generally are more hesitant to file). \"Cheaper to keep her\" is the popular refrain, though it's not something I'd ever be willing to endure personally",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg6tqu",
                    "author": "jasonhn",
                    "body": "most divorces don't happen due to infidelity but rather a growing divide in what a woman expects from the relationship vs what the man expects and women tend to have much higher expectations.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgo6e3",
                    "author": "KGmagic52",
                    "body": "Women get relationship FOMO more than men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzg6tqu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg76ve",
                    "author": "sczmrl",
                    "body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nThis is true under the assumption that a marriage alway satisfy both parties in the same way. But a marriage may be unsatisfactory for a woman and not for a man.\n\nOk, so it\u2019s more common for women to find a marriage unsatisfactory with respect to men? No, because this would be true under the assumption that if a man and a woman are in an unsatisfactory marriage they would react in the same way. But it may happen that a man is worried that he may have to pay alimony while the woman may feel it as an incentive to leave.\n\nA stat is just a measure of something and will not describe anything more than that. You need to measure several things to a have an overview of the world.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg84qk",
                    "author": "mrdunnigan",
                    "body": "Well\u2026. First one has to make a distinction between a marriage under God and a \u201cmarriage\u201d under the State because the  particular OATHS are *radically* different and so the respective *divorces* are just NOT EQUAL.\n\nAfter making this distinction, one can understand *viscerally* why one oath is much harder/more consequential to break than the other, although, the real world \u201cpenalties\u201d do not necessarily reflect this metaphysical Reality.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgi0hj",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzg84qk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgcwgz",
                    "author": "y2jeff",
                    "body": "Yet another popular opinion. Maybe just ignore the redpilled bullshit.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgcyt3",
                    "author": "arkstfan",
                    "body": "The addition of no fault divorce laws reduced suicide rates among women by around 20%. Tracking numbers the drop would occur in a state after the change while neighboring states would not experience such a drop until making divorce easier. \n\nThose changes had no impact on suicide rates among men. \n\nDomestic violence rates also declined as states liberalized divorce. \n\nWhile women do initiate the majority of divorces, I\u2019d say more like three out of five than 80%. In my time in family law it was common in uncontested divorces for the husband to separate or move out (often to the company of his next spouse) and simply give his wife money and expect her to do all the hassle of getting an attorney and filling out paperwork and getting their pre-agreed property and custody settlement approved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgdrpf",
                    "author": "Aim-So-Near",
                    "body": "Shut up",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgfkum",
                    "author": "anooblol",
                    "body": "Just to give you a big reason why. \n\nDivorce paperwork is required for custodial arrangements, and the location where the child is considered to be \u201cliving\u201d, to determine which school they\u2019re going to. And everything else associated with the children. \n\nWomen tend to be in the driver\u2019s seats, with respect to the children\u2019s issues. \n\nSo even if it\u2019s a 50/50 equal decision, both parties want a divorce. The woman is more likely to be thinking about how to deal with \u201cthese sorts of problems\u201d. And \u201cthose sorts of problems\u201d require legal paperwork.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhw2gx",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgfkum"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgft2b",
                    "author": "look_at_the_eyes",
                    "body": "A woman initiation divorce tells me she, quite literally, takes initiative for action. This tells me she probably took a lot of initiative action inside the relationship as well. For example for a more equal divide of tasks, better communication, trying to motivate their partner to be active in the relationship and be emotionally present etc.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhvxfv",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgft2b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgftdc",
                    "author": "wise_potato23",
                    "body": "I would have to counter it with any country where the divorced women won't take half of the man's shit, or in the relationships where the women are the ones making more, the ratios are flipped, it is expected throughout the world for the man to be the main bread winner, meaning that in divorces, specially in countries where half of the money is split, women always come on top, with more rights to custody, and end up holding a bigger bag than when they started (ofcourse in most cases and not all), specially when this thing has become more and more socially accepted that women would do this.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzggxkj",
                    "author": "bigedcactushead",
                    "body": "How do you explain the fact lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay men!",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzghr8o",
                    "author": "SchmeckleHoarder",
                    "body": "Look at woman who won the lottery vs a man. The numbers are fucking crazy for divorce, too crazy to just be a \"coincidence.\u201d",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzghsam",
                    "author": "ReplyOk6720",
                    "body": "What is the saying, all happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is different. I think filing the paperwork means, one gender files the paperwork more than the other. Doesn't mean anything more than that.\u00a0 It doesn't say why. Husband had been cheating on me for years. Running me down verbally to other friends whilw telling me that they didn't like me, and so isolating me. I still loved him. I initially didn't want to even consider divorce. But my friends and therapist encouraged me to file for separation, bc fears he was going to financially destroy me. While he wasnt interested in fixing things, he actually did not want to be divorced. Don't ask me why. I filed citing irreconcilable differences because honestly I just wanted to get through it with the minimum of distress.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhvq4b",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzghsam"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgigqb",
                    "author": "CranberryBauce",
                    "body": "What's funny is that there was a time not long ago when women couldn't initiate divorces, so too many women stayed with abusive, imbalanced, unhealthy men. They don't have to do that anymore. Women initiate 80% of divorces because a lot of men suck.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgu5vj",
                    "author": "88NORMAL_J",
                    "body": "So why would lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay people?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgigqb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgjm77",
                    "author": "itsforwork",
                    "body": "No. It does mean they are the ones giving up first",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgllfv",
                    "author": "AzLibDem",
                    "body": "[Hoe\\_Math covered this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhde8MSwBA&t=320s)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgn7q1",
                    "author": "jackamackat",
                    "body": "Your position is not unreasonable but that's a very high percentage. Extremely high. The simplest explanation which requires the least mental gymnastics and rationalization is that women are not as interested in maintaining marriage.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgnhlo",
                    "author": "KGmagic52",
                    "body": "Women initiate 80% of divorces and still looking for men to take the blame. Women are just allergic to accountability.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgpg4o",
                    "author": "residential_logic",
                    "body": "Yes, it is as the law encourages easy, divorce, and women who are the the majority of the filers because of no-fault divorce, nobody is at fault. The women tend to get everything they want.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgpxvn",
                    "author": "Sometimesmaybegay",
                    "body": "I can honestly say after watching the older men around me in my life I completely understand why it\u2019s so high. My dad, his friends, my uncles treated their wives like dogshit. They didn\u2019t leave but I would\u2019ve never blamed them if they did. Completely changed my worldview and now I tend to side with women over men even as a dude.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh4ny1",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgpxvn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgqks0",
                    "author": "Pale_Kitsune",
                    "body": "I mean, if someone wants to divorce, there's likely a reason, and that reason often stems from the partner.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgrl68",
                    "author": "Responsible_Fig8657",
                    "body": "Have you considered that my ex wife is fucking whore?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgsedp",
                    "author": "JohnnySpoons82",
                    "body": "All I can say is, in my experience, the person who files for divorce is the one who got fed up with the other ones\u2019 *BULLSHIT*\nSource: trust me bro my ex is a bitch",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh42j9",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgsedp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgul4x",
                    "author": "NotYourGa1Friday",
                    "body": "I initiated my divorce after escaping abuse. He never would have divorced, he was happy to have me stay under his thumb forever. \n\nSo yeah, I initiated the divorce \ud83d\ude02",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh3w4g",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgul4x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgv0n8",
                    "author": "couldntyoujust",
                    "body": "Marriage is meant to be a \"for life\" commitment to the other person. And many of these men are being divorced by their wives, not because he's abusive, or had an affair, or anything like that. They're being divorced because the wife is just \"meh, I'm not happy here anymore, my husband means well but he's depressed, stressed out, etc and so I'm bored.\" \n\nNow, I get why that can hurt and stress a woman out so much, but the solution is to work on the marriage, and be honest about feelings, and commit that regardless our feelings, we made a commitment for life, and we're going to work through this together no matter how long it takes. \n\nI think the worst part of all of this is that when a woman divorces her husband like this, she has already spent the last six months, year, several years, secretly grieving the loss of the relationship and letting it go. Meanwhile she still smiles when she sees you, she still kisses you, she may even - like my ex wife - make out with you and have passionate sex with you... and all the while she's grieving the loss of you and the loss of your relationship like you died and she is a widow. Until she's finally reached \"acceptance\" that you are not her husband anymore and she will not be married to you anymore and then when she finally tells you after she's already cut you off emotionally inside herself, only then does she cut you off emotionally from her and force you into the grieving process. Suddenly you go from \"we have our problems but we still love each other\" to \"she left me! WTF!?!?\" \n\nI'm divorced myself. My wife left because she felt like I wasn't a \"partner\" in our marriage and parenting anymore. And there's some truth to that. The reason? I'm struggling with ADHD, Depression, and we lived with my folks (I still do) because we couldn't get ahead enough to buy a house or even afford an apartment and move out. The prices have gotten that ridiculous. \n\nMy parents meanwhile, have their own ideas about what's right and wrong for us to do with regards to parenting and all that. And my mom especially henpecked me every opportunity she got about what I was doing wrong as a parent in just normal interactions with my son; often in front of her. Believe me, I tried to oppose her, and tell her that what she was doing was inappropriate. She was letting us live there, so I was automatically in the wrong. And worse, I'm terrible with verbal self defense and thinking on my feet. \n\nI would always think later about what she had said and how she had won and realized that it was because my brain falls apart when it's afraid and in those moments, it's terrified because on the one hand, I need her to respect me as her grandson's father, and on the other, she has her finger on the button of whether we stay or end up out on the street. So when I might have remembered a point that would have shut her up, I'm not even aware of it in the moment, it only comes to me later when I calm down how she's actually in the wrong and gaslighting me and how she's being a massive hypocrite.\n\nAnd worse than that, my dad is not unwilling to get physically violent with me, though he's only ever spanked or pushed me during my childhood and adolescence. He also had this thing where he goes drill Sargent and lays into me with demoralizing emotional abuse while physically backing me into a corner. It's demoralizing. He will back her up 100% in the moment even if she's terribly in the wrong from any neutral observer's perspective. God forbid I tell her she's out of line or set boundaries with her. They don't respect me, and they don't care about how their treatment of me makes me feel or hurts me. Mom and dad know best! Mom has been trying to be better lately, but it's not enough.\n\nSo I retreated to my room to stay away from them and especially her. I still do. I would let my wife handle the parenting because they for whatever reason respected her. Maybe because she wasn't their flesh and blood? I tried to change and make it a point to be out there with them, but it was still hard and I still had a lot of coping to do. Eventually my wife decided not to back me up anymore, and then later she told me that she didn't love me anymore and wanted a divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgv2jj",
                    "author": "couldntyoujust",
                    "body": "Part 2:\n\nMorally, it was utterly the wrong move on her part. Our son now has to shuttle between two households and I'm not sure if his subconscious picks up on it, but all the shuttling is like he doesn't have a singular \"home\", where he can look and say \"I'm home\". And in all that he's at so much greater risk of all sorts of bad outcomes, even though I'm still in his life and even have him functionally a majority of the time (though we try to make it 50/50; we have an informal custody agreement between ourselves). \n\nShe made a promise to me on our wedding day that we would stick together no matter what, even when one of us was struggling. It really really hurts. She left because her husband was depressed ... probably is depressed, and not able to cope with his overbearing mother, and strong-arming but disengaged and disapproving father. \n\nIt's devastating. You feel like a piece of you was cut off. You're terrified of how far she'll take it with the courts and how much more suffering she'll inflict on you above and beyond the dissolution of a more than a decade long relationship that was intimate in every way possible. You end up an involuntary celibate overnight (not ideologically necessarily, I'm not ideologically one, but in terms of you no longer have a sex partner, and emotionally it will be very difficult to bring yourself to even look for one when you're trying to save your marriage and afterwards when you're grieving for yourself the loss of your marriage). \n\nYou are scared to lose your child, you're scared to lose your wife, you're scared for the financial pain that may be coming that will further weigh you down the rest of your life because of her decision to leave, instead of keeping her vow, and how much harder that's going to make an already very very difficult life where you were already living in poverty. I got lucky in a sense that she just dissolved the marriage and surrendered our storage unit that had a ton of my stuff and a lot of our stuff in it to be auctioned off. Never-mind that I paid for the unit (and we only had it because my parents insisted we keep nothing of ours in their basement that absolutely had the room for at least some of it).\n\nDivorce is so high, that it beggars belief that all these dudes being left were divorced because they're in some way deficient such that she was justified. Not even close. I know that's an \"argument from incredulity\" but you have to be really hateful of men as a sex to think that it's even possible. Men just aren't that bad as a whole. This is why no-fault divorce has been an utter disaster. It needs to stop. We're chewing men up and spitting them out. It's gotta stop. And women need to start taking the bull by the horns instead of leaving their husbands. Yes, it's legal, but no, it's a horrifically destructive and evil act to divorce your man just because he isn't meeting your expectations.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgv0n8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgvbn3",
                    "author": "coming2grips",
                    "body": "Without assigning blame to either partner or gender involved, the party initiating the legal act of divorce has little to no relation to the party responsible for wrong doing. This is even more so in the modern western world where the prevailing standard is for 'no fault' grounds. \n\nOne thing the stat you misquote does say is that women have less reason (or believe they have less reason) to try and maintain the marriage. \n\nThis is the unintended (?) consequence of the long campaign of education that women don't need to be in bad relationships. Anything defined as bad has become grounds to end the relationship regardless of the reality of the act that has been defined as bad.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgz2in",
                    "author": "Greensparow",
                    "body": "Well to be pedantic it depends on what you determine as a  relationship fail. \n\nIf initiating divorce is where the relationship failed then yeah it is mostly women as per your statistics that caused it by initiating.\n\nBut that's really just the simple answer cause it's measurable and very black and white. If you want to dig deeper then you need to know what led to each person filing for divorce, determine who is at fault, or what percentage for each and then make judgment calls regarding blame and truthfulness.\n\nUntil you do that you are pretty much going off emotion and assumptions. So you can say you don't actually know or go by who filed.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgz5p0",
                    "author": "Honore_SG",
                    "body": "due to cultural and social pressure, at least in my country, women tend to be the ones to initiate the talks about wanting to have a marriage and having a wedding once they have a somewhat longer relationship, they are competitive in that sense of not being the ones on their friend group being last or left out, so its not much about if it is time to get married or are they prepared for that type of long lasting compromise its more about status, since divorced women aren't looked down it doesn't come as a downside to them in all contrary the law rewards them with a pension and the living household even id they have no child, now from the last points I've given you, since they arent doing it out of \"love\" or because they want a live partner they jump to it and once they are in the marriage and realize it wasn't what they actually wanted but already had the big party and ceremony with their friends and important family members now they lose interest, start to have discussions, and well they back out of it since marriage isn't easy and worth the time, most men from my country do not want to marry nor are they interest on marriage since a man that isn't married is just a man nothing more nothing less you have no social pressure nor looked down for being single and they wont gain something on return or finalized said marriage is say that women that initiate divorce are in the majority at fault since they just jump to it without really wanting it at least in my country of course.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh1suc",
                    "author": "Commercial_Place9807",
                    "body": "All a lot of men are perfectly happy to just stay separated and will never get off their ass and start the divorce process. My SIL\u2019s ex cheated on her and then left but then dragged his feet on the actual divorce, leaving all of it up to her.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhvh3h",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh1suc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh27dl",
                    "author": "Hesitantparrot223",
                    "body": "You\u2019re an idiot. Change my mind lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh5jxv",
                    "author": "RYNNYMAYNE",
                    "body": "I think it just shows that woman have higher standards in general and modern women are taking less bs, good for them",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhmiwp",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh5jxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh70d4",
                    "author": "aurenigma",
                    "body": "If 80% of divorce is initiated by the woman, then by definition 80% of divorces are marriages being ended/failing because the woman is deciding it to be so.\n\nThere might be many underlying causes, but at the end of the day, those women chose to end the marriage rather than work to fix those causes.\n\nThat's not to say they're wrong to do so, but it is what it is; the marriage failed because they gave up on it. And again, they very well may be right to have given up on it, but you're picking at hairs with the terminology because speaking the literal truth sounds bad to you.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh8cmt",
                    "author": "Calm-Appointment2080",
                    "body": "60% of divorces have porn as a major factor in why the marriage is ending. \n\nIt not only changes the shape of the brain, but also shrinks it. \nPorn use has a whole host of issues like causing erectile dysfunction to it being as addicting as crack. \n\nAlso men who view porn are 300 time's more likely to cheat. \n\nSo the real question is, why are men ruining their marriages and families for porn?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhlt8w",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh8cmt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh9gq1",
                    "author": "TomKikkert",
                    "body": "It is an innate animal instinct and has nothing to do with feminism or anything like that.\n\nBRIFFAULT'S LAW: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.\n\nBoys, if you want to keep your wife, just keep on bringing her shiny colored stones.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhlmif",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh9gq1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh9oc0",
                    "author": "luvCinnamonrolls30",
                    "body": "Definitely look into whether the studies cite the reasons for divorce. I don't remember which one I read, but one study stated that \"lack of commitment\" was one reason, but that's was an umbrella term that covered infidelity, substance abuse, domestic violence etc. Those are extremely serious reasons for seeking divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhlfwg",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh9oc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh9qtv",
                    "author": "432olim",
                    "body": "Women have higher levels of neuroticism than men and so are more likely to perceive situations negatively. Plus women have an easier time getting sex than men. Men are more willing to just stick around and accept the status quo.\n\nThe divorce rate doesn\u2019t say much about who\u2019s at fault, more so about the differences in average temperament of the sexes.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzha1i5",
                    "author": "TechnicianLegal1120",
                    "body": "Women are 100% responsible for divorce in Lesbian relationships.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhad7x",
                    "author": "Sakkyoku-Sha",
                    "body": "I don't know how true that stat is, but if we assume it to be true then the following is true. \n\nAssuming same sex marriages cancel out, then of every 100 divorces, 80 are initiated by women and 20 by men. This would mean that for every 1 divorce initiated by a man there are 4 divorces initiated by women. That is women would be 400% more likely to initiate a divorce than a man. If these are population level statistics, we are talking about potentially tens of millions of divorces here. A sample of potentially tens of millions. \n\nThere are 100% some factors that impact this number, sure men might just be more likely to ignore the paper work, relationship dynamics might be in general less advantageous to women, etc... However I think it's incredibly unlikely that any of these more reasonable explanations are going to add up to the 400% difference between the sexes. \n\nAt the end of the day such a massive difference at such a large scale is likely to indicate that women are in general more likely to become dissatisfied with their marriage then men, and are more likely to want to move to end those relationships than men.\n\nThis again is not to say anything about whether or not that is good or bad, or whether or not women are justified in ending these relationships. But it is to say that the reason these relationships end is officiated more by women than men. That is just what that statistic means.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhal3g",
                    "author": "mahaitre",
                    "body": "Anyway the divorce rate is the biggest of all in Lesbain couples.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhc0iq",
                    "author": "Gwave72",
                    "body": "Women initiate it more often because they are usually the ones getting spousal support payments and can live with someone else care free. If a guy leaves he\u2019s broke living in his parents basement.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhm2k6",
                    "author": "MysticFox05",
                    "body": "Initiating divorce is a terrible crime to commit. I would say that barring cheating, separation is a much better alternative.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhp1i3",
                    "author": "Longjumping_Quail_40",
                    "body": "These are just views without data support. And data admits different interpretations. Just don\u2019t have view and collect data if you really want to understand social issues.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhsgse",
                    "author": "GenocideAllRedditors",
                    "body": "\"Man bad, woman perfect\" reddit moment",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhskrv",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Where did I say that. I said it could be some both neither at fault etc",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzhsgse"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzht6j6",
                    "author": "OMenoMale",
                    "body": "\n\n\n\nIt doesn't matter. They make up their own statistics and ignore anything else. They parrot each other word for word.\u00a0You can say the sky is blue and they'll pretend you said it's red and then they'll call you stupid for saying it's red. DARVO.\u00a0\n\n\nRedpill men blame women for anything and everything and don't even bother having an actual conversation. I have yet to engage one without the conversation turning into a constant barage of insults\u00a0 especially once they know I'm a woman.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhtibu",
                    "author": "Rennan-The-Mick",
                    "body": "Correct",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhu01m",
                    "author": "Commissar-Dan",
                    "body": "Women have more support socially for divorce is probably most of it, most guts aren't exactly easy to talk to about these issues meaning they can feel more trapped. \n\nIn terms of cheating men are slightly more likely to forgive cheating and 55% of divorce is initiated by cheating, but it isn't 80%.\n\nIt's also ridiculous to lay divorce as the fault of an entire gender their are a multitude of factors some just and some unjust.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhwoju",
                    "author": "ExhibitionistBrit",
                    "body": "-\u201cMarriages don\u2019t break up on account of infidelity, it\u2019s just a symptom that something else is wrong with the relationship,\u201d\n\n*When Harry met Sally.*\n\nIt might be a line from a rom com but it\u2019s very true. Just like divorce isn\u2019t the cause of relationships failing, nor is necessarily the affair. Emotional or otherwise.\n\nThe main cause of relationships breaking up is laziness and poor communication in my experience.\n\nPeople start marriages with a commitment to eachother. Lots of words are shared about how they will live their life moving forwards and strive to be the best version of themselves for their partner. So very few actually commit to those words, instead rendering them hollow.\n\nThat\u2019s what then causes the other symptoms. Bitterness, snarkiness, infidelity. Someone essentially lied to get as far as they did in the relationship then tested on their laurels and the other party resents that. \n\nIt\u2019s not the some total of the problem, the second most common reason in my experience that marriages break up is abuse. I\u2019ve seen that abuse drive people to infidelity too. Because the abused is afraid to ask for divorce until they feel like they have a protector. So they stay in a relationship that is failing, due to a trust that was already broken by their partner.\n\nPoint being that divorce numbers are almost meaningless to the cause of a relationship ending. You always have to go back to the root and sometimes it\u2019s impossible to know for anyone but the two in the relationship so judgement should absolutely be withheld.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhzrkz",
                    "author": "macone235",
                    "body": "Well first of all, I want to distinguish between cause and causal fairness, and which one you are specifically assigning to your point. If I go to a store, and I'm stabbed, then I'm responsible for being stabbed because I went to the store. However, most people would not consider that justified. \n\nUltimately, a relationship is two people's expectations and effort coming together. It does not matter what the expectations are - they can be as high and absurd as can be - it is still ultimately men's job to meet those expectations, or else they're responsible for their relationship situation (or lack thereof). However, it is a two way-street. Just like a man is responsible for being chosen or not, a woman is effectively the one making the selection. \n\nFor example, if you are 5-foot and single. Then, there are two conditions being met. 1. Women aren't attracted to the trait, therefore you are single 2. You possess the trait, therefore you are single. If either of these things are untrue, then you are no longer single in a void. So without any morality involved, you would be correct. If your wife woke up one day and said, \"you need to be 8 foot tall by tonight or we're getting a divorce\", and you failed to do so, then in a sense you would still be at fault. There is no greater weight in this equation though. It is simply a matter of two conditional true and false statements.\n\nNow, I assume that because you are using the phrase \"greater than\" that you are alluding to justification rather than simplistic conditionality. Theoretically, you could still be correct though. Simply saying \"women initiate 80% of divorces means they're at fault\" is not logical in isolation, because it lacks information. In this state, you could make the argument that those divorces are justified.\n\nHowever in doing so, you are assuming that men are essentially inferior to be in a relationship with and provide less to the relationship. The issue with this is that it is very easily verifiably untrue when you do bring information into the equation that is typically provided when statements like this are made. While women do provide more in some ways (like cleaning the household), it is overwhelmingly men doing the courting to convince women to mate in our species. This supports the fact that women are objectively more selective. (and I would say most would agree have at least become more selective over the decades) \n\nSo of course, that means men have to meet higher standards, and women are more likely to have a foot out the door as a result. What's even more telling is the fact that gay men have significantly lower divorce rates than lesbian women, which is basically proof that women are more difficult to be in a relationship with (and this is despite studies also showing that women have lower standards for other women).\n\nLet's look at it from a gendered expectation. Why are men essentially seen as unattractive? Typically because they're feminine acting or looking in some way, which is what in essence? *Weakness*. What are women's gendered expectations? Well, women don't really have strict gendered-expectations to be a certain way, but it obviously does skew somewhat feminine. For men though, there is definitely no room for interpretation - you are expected to be masculine., which is what in a sense? Strength, and strength is obviously something that is harder to pursue than weakness. You could argue, \"well, it's 2024 and men are expected to do more traditionally feminine things that are seen as easier like cleaning the house\". Sure, but do they do so at the expense of their masculine expectations? No. They are still primarily expected to be masculine first and foremost while also easing the burden of the feminine gender role to become essentially - even easier. As a result, that makes the masculine role harder, and thus, men have to be even stronger. \n\nThe thing about masculinity is that there is not even a lot of adjustability You can't just go shave your legs, get a boob job, and slap on some make up. Everything has to be earned, and everything that can't be earned is a roll of a dice. Not only that, but a man is only as good as the man next to him. The reality is that most men are not deemed desirable by women. This very fact means that a man has to overcompensate and will still only manage to be settled for, and that is not justified. That is not fair, and this precisely where you're wrong in your argument. Women **are** the reason for why a majority of relationships fail, and that will always occur when they have the leverage because of hypergamy. No matter how good men become - the best men will always be better; and that is precisely why we have a situation in our society where a man will lead, protect, provide, court, romanticize, and even make sure a woman isn't taking care of his household chores in return - and not only will she not even show gratitude, but she'll get upset if you even expect it. So unless you believe men deserve an even worse life than they already have, then no, they are not responsible.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi2c26",
                    "author": "TunaWiggler",
                    "body": "Women probably initiate more first because they're most likely to have more to gain. Alimony. Property. The kids. Etc.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi3jck",
                    "author": "Grakch",
                    "body": "I think you\u2019re overlooking the fact that women are more inclined to have algorithmic content focused on empowerment and not needing a man and then that is reinforced within their social circles as an enforcement loop which leads to then wanting to just break away from a relationship rather than work on it. men are more likely to get no relationship related algorithmic content, or get content for therapy, or get redpill content. As a result we see more women constantly striving for something better from each relationship, or wanting something different than their partner does and eventually leaving based on it. a lot of what is happening now is entirely due to the content people receive on their devices or if they don\u2019t use it then their friends might and they are influenced there. \n\n\nIf an individual is using the internet for interpersonal advice it\u2019s going to generate more content based on the advice you are asking and self reinforce the original point. I don\u2019t believe this allows for the individual to fully assess their options and it inhibits them from reviewing alternatives because everything is saying do the original thing you had searched the longest. The world is really discounting the effects of algorithmic profiling. \n\nThis is independent on good or bad actions from the partner more it is that the original act elicits such a emotional response that it is the one that most effort is going be used on and then the individual is going to see data reinforcing that original idea. L",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi6ke0",
                    "author": "Bunnysliders",
                    "body": "Women benefit from divorce, of course they'd initiate once the time is a right",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi6s6w",
                    "author": "Redditesgey",
                    "body": "Lesbians divorce the most. Women are the problem. Women can't stand each other.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi78ln",
                    "author": "pridejoker",
                    "body": "There's always at least one person in a bad relationship who thinks everything's totally fine. That's what makes toxic relationships so soul sucking: when only one person's doing all of the work.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi8ccq",
                    "author": "Vobat",
                    "body": "There was something I read about how the pill effects women hormones and when they come off it to have a child the hormones change again and women can become off-put with their partners, it could be something as simply as the way their partner smells. Something like 60-70% of women are on the pill I wonder if this might be the reason why divorce rates have increased?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kziahq6",
                    "author": "babieswithrabies63",
                    "body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Then cis couples, then gay men with the lowest. The score is posted.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzias8i",
                    "author": "MrBrandopolis",
                    "body": "What's the point of marriage anymore\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzid2rt",
                    "author": "BrisbaneDoOver",
                    "body": "What are the stats in gay male relationships and lesbian relationships?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzidmn7",
                    "author": "Due_Dirt_2841",
                    "body": "I think this is just another situation of women being given the brunt of responsibility for \"boys being boys\". Women are told to hide away insecurity and not be a problem when men have friendships with women that get a little too close (and to be clear, I think men and women can be platonic friends, but there are usually signs if more is there), but then if a man cheats, women are often still held responsible because they shouldn't have left their man without supervision with a pretty woman... like he's a child being left with candy and not a full adult person.\n\nThere are so many social constructs in place that defer all responsibility onto women, it's exhausting and frankly is a big reason why I imagine a lot of women are more frequently choosing to stay single these days--men just aren't held accountable, and we are always the scapegoat. But every statistic I've seen states men are more likely to cheat than women are, and they're likely to do it during emotional and/or physically taxing times like pregnancy or cancer. I personally wouldn't (and haven't) stayed in relationships with men who left me high and dry when I needed them most, and I wouldn't expect other women to do anything differently. If that means a higher divorce rate, then who am I to question it?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzii3g2",
                    "author": "Suitable-Cycle4335",
                    "body": "I think you misunderstood what their point is. Most of the time I heard about this topic it wasn't about assigning blame but about realizing the tough spot men could be at. Whether it's the man's fault, the woman's, both or none doesn't change much in terms of what you'll have to go through post-divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzijl4b",
                    "author": "Prophayne_",
                    "body": "It makes sense to me that the gender with everything to gain in a divorce is the one most inclined to start them. \n\n\nIf I start one, I lose a third of assets that existed before she did, a third of whatever I make for however long the state says for the future, no time with the kids but majority of their expenses. \n\nShe would get to gain all of those things. \n\nI can see the difference in reluctance.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzimbgf",
                    "author": "TomKikkert",
                    "body": "Love the downvotes! Argue with me because by downvoting you prove me right",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjb7i9",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I didn't down vote you..",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzimbgf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzinn8r",
                    "author": "CordCarillo",
                    "body": "As soon as you used the term \"red-pilled,\" I knew you were gonna be full of shit.\n\nIt's not as black and white as simple fault.  There are issues on both sides that lead to a divorce.  \n\nThe 80% just shows who is quicker to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and never take responsibility for their contribution toward the break up.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzinorw",
                    "author": "inspire-change",
                    "body": "i always took this take as who *filed* for divorce, not who made the marriage fail.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzioer5",
                    "author": "StacyStatement",
                    "body": "Women divorce males for being shit men. No one abandons their marriage for fun. Divorce is the man's fault.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzir7pm",
                    "author": "Jebbouy",
                    "body": "God forbid you take your vows seriously and work through a bad time. God forbid we hold women accountable for the words they vow! Domestic abuse and cheating are good reasons to divorce. Everything else y\u2019all conjure up is retarded. \u201cUnsatisfactory marriage\u201d fuck off",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkz450",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzir7pm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzitzvj",
                    "author": "FactChecker25",
                    "body": ">Often I hear people who are redpilled s\n\nIt\u2019s a really bold assumption to think that anyone that has this belief is \u201credpilled\u201d. It just immediately screams, \u201cI can\u2019t see past my own politics!\u201d\n\n>Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once.\n\nNo. I don\u2019t know anyone that would be ok if their partner cheated on them.\n\n>So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc\n\nI agree that we need more information to come to make an accurate judgment.\n\nOne large factor is the fact that women nearly always make out in a divorce. It\u2019s rare that a woman has to see the guy taking the kids or paying the ex husband alimony.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kziwvvi",
                    "author": "Pak1stanMan",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve never heard that lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzj2eou",
                    "author": "anonymous-rebel",
                    "body": "Unpopular opinion: a divorce or a break up isn\u2019t a failure, it\u2019s an acknowledgement that two people aren\u2019t compatible.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjagag",
                    "author": "somerandomguyanon",
                    "body": "One reason guys don\u2019t initiate divorce is that divorce disproportionately destroys their life.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjauby",
                    "author": "Midokun",
                    "body": "The divorce rates among lesbian are higher than gays",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzji8k5",
                    "author": "Th3DarkSh1n0bi1",
                    "body": "Actually in most cases it is their fault based on the vows themselves.. Till death do us part.. And most divorce isnt caused by the man breaking vows.. Its financial issues and irreconcilable differences.\n\nBut that being said its just biology mixed with modern society. Females are always more likely to leave males when things are sunshine and rainbows and she gets bored or the guy gets stagnant etc.  Not to mention many of the ones getting married in their 30s and 40s are settling for a safe option when they used to date mostly toxic people. That seriously can effect their future relationship stability.\n\nBoth parties play a part in the extremely high divorce rate but currently the primary burden doesnt fall on men. With modern women having equal if not more rights than men and so much freedom they can easily leave. They are even rewarded for it with resources..\n\nWhere as back in the day it wasnt as beneficial for them to leave their men. When you remove the \"need\" for men then its no surprise most would divorce within the standard 3 to 5 year period.. After the butterflies have left.\n\nSecular people shouldnt be getting married in the first place. There is literally no logical reason for it.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjlopm",
                    "author": "Individual-Car1161",
                    "body": "Most divorces cite \u201cirreconcilable differences\u201d which is on both parties. The next most cited fall under similar archetypes",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjm2c8",
                    "author": "I-mean-maybe",
                    "body": "I think the rate or of lesbian vs gay male divorce should be enough to show women are the ones leaving relationships at 2x the rate.\n\nYou can take straight and same sex relationships , isolate for sex and effectively get the same rates of departure.\n\nPeople just want to point the finger at men, because its easy to scape goat men. \n\nData doesn\u2019t give a fuck about what you want the narrative to be. People can obviously shape data to match biases but given all the data you will find truth. \n\nIf we had a dataset with a document per divorce that contained, sex , initiator, reasons, investigations of sorts etc. it would be very trivial to put everything in a document store and produce aggregates like rates of violence, infidelity, etc just using a combination of nlp entity extract and fuzzy match logic . Could even ingest into a graph data basis and link persons entities to find the people who ruin the most marriages by name given enough data. I suppose you could write a crawler since divorces are public but what a pain.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjmujo",
                    "author": "amishdoinks11",
                    "body": "Obviously not saying it\u2019s women\u2019s fault but lesbian couples also file for divorce at a higher rate than gay (men) couples. Just tells me women won\u2019t settle for a partner who doesn\u2019t meet a certain standard which is okay",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjnefs",
                    "author": "IllPen8707",
                    "body": "No but it does indicate that divorce tends to favour the woman. A man in a toxic marriage is less likely to hit the panic button because he knows he'll get reamed in court, and that's what needs to change.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjz04s",
                    "author": "Icy-Statistician6831",
                    "body": "No, but If those stactics are true, it's probably more often than not because woman doesn't feel attracted anymore. It's not bad or women's \"fault\", but it just shows that they initiate more breakups, lol. It's easier for women to find someone else.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzk8xua",
                    "author": "Tetsu_Kai",
                    "body": "It's a case by case thing. You cant make blanket statements about entire groups of people, it will always be false. If you want to know why marriages are failing, you'd have to ask the people who were in those marriages.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkagoz",
                    "author": "Comprehensive_Ear586",
                    "body": "Are straight people okay?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkc9fc",
                    "author": "BetterHedgehog2608",
                    "body": "I think you have a misunderstanding of marriage. Marriage is a vow for life. That may be your confusion if you think marriage is just until your partner does something you don\u2019t like.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkf9zo",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Can you show where it must be so. Whether in law or not. The law had deemed marriage to be between man and woman. I see no reason why it can't ever expand",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzkc9fc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkcf2a",
                    "author": "InterestingSyrup7139",
                    "body": "Misogynists will always find a way to find women for everything. Most women file because their husbands are the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkhhvr",
                    "author": "Steel_mill_hands",
                    "body": "This is the precursor to the \"Despite initiating almost 70% of domestic violence incidents, women are not the reason relationship gets physical\" post.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl31nu",
                    "author": "Ok_Job_4555",
                    "body": "google marriage failures in lesbian relationships",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl3f60",
                    "author": "psiloryan",
                    "body": "Why does this matter at all?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl6zlq",
                    "author": "DryEditor7792",
                    "body": "Think of 10 random examples of males in your life dealing with hardship. Now think of the last ten times you remember females dealing with hardship. Which ones do you remember helping other people during those times.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl973m",
                    "author": "Sheetmusicman94",
                    "body": "I don't see a difference between women initiating divorces and women not liking \"unsatisfactory\" marriages. They are the same thing.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzlba5s",
                    "author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
                    "body": "The vast majority of divorces are for \"irreconcilable differences\" not infidelity. If you are ending a marriage because it doesn't meet your requirements instead of trying to work on that marriage and make it work? Your fault. You own it.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzllf2j",
                    "author": "Unionisundefeated",
                    "body": "Yep, of course it is the logical, normally much more stable person in the relationship.  Sure",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzln0eu",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzllf2j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzloxcb",
                    "author": "fire_alarmist",
                    "body": "Its not about who does what, its about who has what to lose. In a divorce, a man stands to lose half of everything he has worked for over a lifetime just by virtue of a woman saying \"meh im not feeling it anymore\". There are ads, social influences , friends and everyone always urging women to not get married or divorce. Women will by and large always be favored for custody, divorce laws in general are absolutely archaic and discriminate against men. So localities are even known for throwing out prenups. The main purpose of them these days is to saddle as much financial responsibility onto the man as legally possible so that the state doesnt have to pick up the tab taking care of the woman/child. Add to that, a man doesnt really see marriage as a ticket to a better life like women do. So there is just so much more to lose for a man, not much to gain by trying to go out and find a replacement so they just stick it out and work harder to keep their current arrangement as long as they can. Meanwhile, there is nothing to lose for a woman, the world keeps telling her she deserves better and husband isnt good enough, the allure of a better, richer husband is always out there. Obviously when its so easy for them, they are much more likely to initiate divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzlpeye",
                    "author": "Anxious-Count-5799",
                    "body": "I think most people understand that the point is that women are less likely to try and fix something that is broken when they are so empowered to just leave, take a bunch of money, and find someone else to act as a placeholder.  I exaggerate a bit to point out that our culture currently encourages this.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzlvbxz",
                    "author": "DropAnchor4Columbus",
                    "body": "Logically speaking, this is a statement that makes sense.  Given the statistical imbalance, it's unlikely.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzm519v",
                    "author": "MR_DIG",
                    "body": "I know the numbers are closer to 50/50 than 80/20, but you should look at other things that cause divorce other than cheating.\n\nI think the general perception of women initiating divorce stems from relationships where the woman is UNHAPPY, and the man is CONTENT. But due to lack of communication this does not change until she divorces him.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzmbbfz",
                    "author": "adlubmaliki",
                    "body": "I agree. The main reason relationships fail is because monogamy is unnatural",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzmcrzr",
                    "author": "More-Ad4663",
                    "body": "Can you show a resource to me proving that men are more likely to be ok with cheating? I've honestly never heard of that, and in fact find it hard to believe.\n\nWe already know a reason why women could be more likely to initiate divorce. Statistical research shows that women have more confidence that they'll find someone soon compared to men. While it's likely that it's more difficult for most men to replace a lost partner, at least that's what they seem to believe.\n\nThis however doesn't necessarily mean that women are the problem. Ofc, they could be in some individual cases, but not necessarily always or most of the time. More data is required to make a decision regarding this issue. Otherwise, we'd be speculating based on bias.\n\nAlso, divorce isn't necessarily the death of a relationship. It's sometimes the funeral of a long dead relationship. Some right wing people seem to be erroneously thinking that all is well and good for a relationship if people are still together. That's why some of them keep mentioning how divorce rates were so low 3-5 generations ago. What they don't seem to understand however is that being together doesn't necessarily equate to being happy. A marriage isn't necessarily a successful relationship just because it's going on.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzmus12",
                    "author": "Nincompoop6969",
                    "body": "Show me the source where these statistics come from and then the sources they got it from. Bias is often coated in things like this but people take it as factual. Even the words give reason to be skeptical like \"initiating\"\n\n\nA lot of news is staged and politicians often buy out the media or companies that need to advertise.\u00a0\n\n\nThere is also other factors and statistics around this too. Like what percentage of marriages are with what genders, what is the length of the marriage difference of these genders, what percentage of woman were what age that initiated these divorces, how was the information gathered, etc",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzn27yv",
                    "author": "forpetlja",
                    "body": "Depends how we perceive marriage. I see it as relict from past made by patriarchal society to keep women under leash. Thus, by women gaining rights and self awareness we kinda do make relationships fail, just by not accepting crap treatment anymore. That aside, reason why marriagies exist and endured for decads war women behaving silent and obedient. Move it out of picture you get what we see today - high divorce rates. Which is actually making me happy. Nobody should suffer abuse.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzn9lo4",
                    "author": "borninsmithers",
                    "body": "Oh of course not , they wouldn\u2019t take the blame anyways!!",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kznan7j",
                    "author": "Dennis_the_nazbol",
                    "body": "One datapoint to look at is the higher divorce (and domestic abuse) rate in lesbian relationships. Im not encouraging to draw any anti-gay or anti-woman conclusion from this. Maby women are less toleran of imperfections in a relationship, maby men are more careful when selectig a long term partner, maby there is some other variable im not claiming to know the answer.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kznbiq3",
                    "author": "surfingkoala035",
                    "body": "For better or worse, the chances of a woman being able to survive outside the union of marriage are much higher than they were in the past.  Is it the only factor in initiating divorce?  Of course not.  But not being destroyed financially is a big factor.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzo0s5b",
                    "author": "Godiva_pervblinderxx",
                    "body": "The non abusive/ non cheating reasons women initiate divorce are: because of differences in parenting, because men aren't pulling thier weight domestically, and because of issues with their husband's family (and let's throw male porn addiction/female sexual dissatisfaction in there as well)",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzogn63",
                    "author": "Shuteye_491",
                    "body": "[here ya go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzov1b3",
                    "author": "joyous-at-the-end",
                    "body": "thanks to all\u00a0the mothers who put their kids first and got the fuck out of there.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzp166z",
                    "author": "VCthaGoAT",
                    "body": "Lesbians have higher divorce rates than gay men in same sex relationships in every developed nation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20corrected,same%20as%20opposite%2Dsex%20couples.\n\nThere was a study done on Tinder and women only Swipe Right around 5% of the time. In comparison, men Swipe Right about 53% of the time. \n\nWomen have much higher expectations and are significantly more picky in choosing a partner. Statistically speaking most of them will not end up with the person they \u201cthought\u201d they deserved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzp5jhn",
                    "author": "AllAmericanProject",
                    "body": "Its actually a pillar in the redpill community to take statistics and evo-science and present them in a way that supports their narrative often either misunderstanding, misrepresenting or down right lying about said studies",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzp70p7",
                    "author": "Background-Heat740",
                    "body": "The issue is not that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. The heart of the issue is men seeing videos and posts all over the internet of women leaving supposedly good men for very petty reasons. When that kind of thing is so visible, men question how many of those divorces women initiate are for bad reasons.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzpmh3c",
                    "author": "Beseriousforonceno",
                    "body": "Too late, new generations are already aware.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzp70p7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzpbvay",
                    "author": "XXXblackrabbit",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t feel bad for divorced men that get taken to the cleaners at all in 2024. Imagine willingly letting the government in your love life \ud83d\ude02",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzpm19b",
                    "author": "Beseriousforonceno",
                    "body": "Exactly. The cat is out of the bag.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzpbvay"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzplvof",
                    "author": "Beseriousforonceno",
                    "body": "No worries, no one is getting married these days.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzptaz5",
                    "author": "cosmic_uterus",
                    "body": "Men are less likely to file for divorce because they benefit so much from being married even in little ways. Who\u2019s going to do the domestic labor or schedule their doctors appointments?",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq0cn4",
                    "author": "Loud-Condition9827",
                    "body": "Well more lesbians get divorced then gay men. Idk",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq1usg",
                    "author": "Impressive_Culture_5",
                    "body": "Yeah, I\u2019d argue the one initiating the divorce is not the problem",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq2ice",
                    "author": "mancer187",
                    "body": "That statistic is basically meaningless without considering the context of those cases.  \n\n\nHowever...  Lesbian couples are more likely to divorce than hetero couples, and gay men don't come anywhere close.  Take from that what you will.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq6il3",
                    "author": "Fantastic_Camera_467",
                    "body": "Men try to stay together for the family. Women are more likely to split in general.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzr4d8o",
                    "author": "debunkedyourmom",
                    "body": "it doesn't matter why divorces happen. The value proposition for the spouse that makes more money is in the shit.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzraoiv",
                    "author": "russr",
                    "body": "No, it's definitely the women...\n\n\"Between 2004 and 2009, the average annual divorce rate for all homosexual marriages was almost 2% (the total rate of divorce over those five years was 11%) Also between 2004 and 2009, lesbian divorce rates were nearly double of those of gay men.\"",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzrjqov",
                    "author": "Madman_Micha",
                    "body": "I mean divorce court, heavily, favored the woman. So they don\u2019t have much to lose. Honestly see the reason to get married.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzsabp9",
                    "author": "PeanutsNCorn",
                    "body": "You lost me at women...",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzslgge",
                    "author": "Additional_Slice7606",
                    "body": "I appreciate this. \n\nWhen I've been in a relationship that's struggling it's usually always been my partner that's worked to make things better. \n\nIf anything, they tried to work on it and I was never taught to do so. \n\nSo, IME, I'd say that a woman leaving likely means she's the type to advocate for her needs and may very well have tried, without success, to fix things.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzsndqc",
                    "author": "West-Rate9357",
                    "body": "Yeah, look up the lesbian divorce rate, I'll wait.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzsqa1m",
                    "author": "Glad-Commercial1748",
                    "body": "Also perhaps more likely to become unsatisfied in the marriage? \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f\n\nGrasping at straws here ;) lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzt29ct",
                    "author": "manicdijondreamgirl",
                    "body": "I just think it\u2019s that men are way more unlikely to actually go and file paperwork lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzt9xkc",
                    "author": "FeetPicHero",
                    "body": "Feminism has taught women that men are subhuman and that there is no value in maintaining relationships with them. Men are just an avenue for money via child support/alimony. They want to victimize while being the victim. Equality between genders means men pay them money for some imaginary injustice (think made up things like micro aggressions and pink tax). Feminist think it's an injustice that men find certain traits attractive. They even made their own pejorative, male gaze, to shame men who have a sexuality.  For women, the relationships aren't failing. They are doing what they want from them, money, the ability to hurt others, and a victim status.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzt9zsx",
                    "author": "alohamoira210",
                    "body": "Seems like a lot of people don't know how to interpret statistics",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzuoucf",
                    "author": "DelightfulandDarling",
                    "body": "The person who files is not necessarily the person who initiates the divorce.\n\nMy ex walked out and left me to do all the work (just as he always had). I filed, changed the locks, put the kids in therapy etc because he was busy being a useless drunk.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzvjf0l",
                    "author": "ay-foo",
                    "body": "What does it mean?",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzvngce",
                    "author": "Distinct_Face_5796",
                    "body": "I believe this generation is more hedonistic and selfish than someone born in the 40s as an average. For both genders.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzw4re4",
                    "author": "Yoloswaggins89",
                    "body": "Yes yea it\u2019s always the man\u2019s fault",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzw9fwv",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Who said its the mansnfault?",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzw4re4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzw8ybx",
                    "author": "sterlinghday",
                    "body": "I think the cause is rather nuanced my self. No one demographic is to blame, just humans being humans.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzwg7zy",
                    "author": "mslaffs",
                    "body": "I thought it was obvious",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzwkm3d",
                    "author": "whoinvitedthesepeopl",
                    "body": "Women file for divorce because they are done.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzwnd6w",
                    "author": "BackgroundAd9784",
                    "body": "Look man, divorce rates are around 60% for hetero marriage, like 20% for gay marriage and around 80% for lesbian marriage.  Yes women are the problem.  Want a great marriage? Be a man! Go gay!",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzxbp3d",
                    "author": "DownTownDave915",
                    "body": "Most divorces are not due to cheating, but financial reasons.\n\nSo it can be women are constantly marrying immature financially illiterate  morons (seen it a lot) or they are not sticking around when times get hard financially,\n\nEither way it does make them look kinda bad.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzxdrl1",
                    "author": "Yabrosif13",
                    "body": "No, but it does suggest they are typically the main beneficiaries in a divorce",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzxqbf6",
                    "author": "Master-Efficiency261",
                    "body": "Women being most likely to initiate divorce proceedings just shows that women are the ones 'managing' the relationship status; the odds that a man are happy to live un-divorced but separate because he doesn't want to go through the financial hardship of an actual divorce seems quite high, compared to a woman who likely wants to have the marriage ended so that she can pursue other options without having to chase her ex down for a full and final divorce - which is, ironically, a recurrent theme of several 90's movies like Twister.\n\nI frankly don't know why anyone would extrapolate the people who are most likely to start paperwork to mean that those people are 'the cause' of the relationsihp failing. I'd simply assume they're the more paperwork, ducks in a row oriented type - and since it's statistically women, and it's kind of socially normal for us to joke about how women are dragging men into marriage etc. it kinda makes obvious sense that it's just that women are expected to manage the status of the relationship they have, whereas men can just kinda be in whatever and float through various situationships etc. and it won't matter because no one will judge them. .",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzyi2wt",
                    "author": "tulipfraise",
                    "body": "As a woman all these stats tell me are that men aren\u2019t worthy or quality partners in the first place and I shouldn\u2019t even try. There\u2019s absolutely no reason women are spending thousands of dollars, upending their families, changing their entire financial and living situation and divorcing from a long time partner for shits and giggles",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzze5d2",
                    "author": "Applepitou3",
                    "body": "There are waaaaaayy to many factors to think about with this number.",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzzjp01",
                    "author": "Necessary_Row_8356",
                    "body": "Nah the women are probably 100% responsible..\ud83d\ude0e",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0150go",
                    "author": "TheSpiritofFkngCrazy",
                    "body": "Well, let's take men out of the equation. Lesbian marriages. Then take women out of the equation. Gay marriages. The numbers don't lie fam.",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l01gksd",
                    "author": "Intelligent_Loan_540",
                    "body": "This stat just reminds me to never get married honestly",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l02tg6h",
                    "author": "Complex-Key-8704",
                    "body": "Def not. They initiate 80% of marriage so it only follows they'd want to correct their mistake",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l057050",
                    "author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
                    "body": "P.S.:  Men are statistically somewhat more likely to cheat, and actually far less likely to forgive cheating, whether it's a one-time thing or an ongoing thing.  And I agree that infidelity is a justifiable basis for ending a marriage.  But that doesn't change the fact that women file more often.  Arguably, that still represents them giving up on the marriage more than the other person, even if the husband is screwing up.  (And if one partner is not providing adequate sex/affection, which is common, especially from wives, infidelity is a foreseeable result, with the withholding party therefore partly to blame.)\n\nClearly any marriage that a person leaves is unsatisfactory to that person.  But people also assume a responsibility to work on a marriage when they get married, and that includes clearly conveying one's unhappiness, the need for specific changes, and the consequences for not changing.  So to me the relevant question is whether the person leaving (usually the woman, apparently) is conveying that prior to leaving.   That may be an open question, but many men are clearly claiming they're completely/generally blindsided when the women files.  And it's unlikely that's always BS, even if it may be sometimes.",
                    "date": "2024-04-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l05lqh9",
                    "author": "Solicidal",
                    "body": "As a general rule, anybody claiming to be \u201credpilled\u201d likes to be believe absolute fucking nonsense based on what makes them feel good. That whole \u201cBeta, Alpha, Sigma\u201d era was basically repackaged star signs for insecure blokes.",
                    "date": "2024-04-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l110x4x",
                    "author": "EmbarrassedMix4182",
                    "body": "Women initiating divorce more often doesn't solely indicate they're the main reason for marital dissatisfaction. Initiating divorce can reflect women's empowerment to leave unsatisfactory relationships. Reasons for divorce are multifaceted and can't be simplified to gender. Both men and women can be at fault for various issues like infidelity or incompatible life goals. Statistics on cheating show both genders are capable. Moreover, some divorces occur due to mutual agreement or irreconcilable differences, without blame on either side. Using divorce initiation rates to blame women overlooks complex relationship dynamics and individual circumstances, painting an unfair picture of women as the sole cause.",
                    "date": "2024-04-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3gala7",
                    "author": "Suspicious_Ferret108",
                    "body": "Women initiating most divorces doesn't solely reflect their fault in relationships failing. It indicates they're more likely to seek dissolution in unsatisfactory marriages. Reasons for divorce vary; it's not inherently about fault. Men and women both contribute to marital issues. Infidelity, for instance, doesn't automatically assign blame to one gender. Divorce often stems from compatibility issues, evolving priorities, or irreconcilable differences. Focus on understanding the complexities of relationship dynamics rather than assigning blame based on divorce initiation rates. Recognize individual circumstances and mutual responsibilities in relationship breakdowns.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l5z3wws",
                    "author": "vaksninus",
                    "body": "With stats like these, there really is very little point in gettkng marriee. In the first place, you don't need papers to love someone.",
                    "date": "2024-05-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1c35brq",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 1109,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "kzejm6z",
                "author": "Kman17",
                "body": "> are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters?\n\nOne clarification to your view I would like to make is that cheating rates do not indicate who is responsible for relationship failure either.\n\nIt\u2019s hard to get good data here, but this a [good list of polls](https://gitnux.org/cheating-before-marriage-statistics/#:~:text=Do%20men%20or%20women%20cheat,cheating%20than%20women%20before%20marriage.)\n\nInterestingly, it shows that men and women cheat at similar rates in *unmarried* relationships, but men are a lot more prone to cheating when married.\n\nThe reason for this is hopefully obvious: divorce law tends to be much more favorable to women than men.\n\nThus unhappy women are more prone to filing, unhappy men more prone to staying but cheating.\n\nThus you shouldn\u2019t look at cheating as responsible for deterioration of the relationship; the deterioration starts much earlier.",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 19,
                "parent_id": "1c35brq"
            },
            {
                "id": "kzejyq0",
                "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                "body": "!delta I can see why people think prior to the cheating it is the cause but I think nothing justifies cheating. If you violate your terms whatever that may be in the relationship that's on you",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 4,
                "parent_id": "kzejm6z"
            },
            {
                "id": "kzek5jw",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kman17 ([91\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Kman17)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-04-13",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "kzejyq0"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeewnj",
                    "author": "Most-Pop-8963",
                    "body": "This trend only started after at fault divorce was replaced with no fault divorce in the USA. This shows that there is not sufficient reason such as cheating for divorce leading to the majority of modern divorces. Just simple disagreements.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzef8rs",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I mean what are the stats on the reasons why people divorce? Do you have evidence? And if it really is simple disagreements how can we say women are at fault.\n\nIf a woman says she doesn't tolerate x and a man doesn't change is it his fault or hers? I'd argue it's neither. \n\nThis post isn't meant to say men are bad but to counter the ideas women are has",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 12,
                    "parent_id": "kzeewnj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeey89",
                    "author": "FaerieStories",
                    "body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening.\n\nI just Googled this and there are a number of articles that would probably give you a better-informed response than most users here could off the top of their head. This one for example:\n\n[https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men](https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220511-why-women-file-for-divorce-more-than-men)\n\n*Women also tend to gain fewer emotional benefits from marriage, which could make single life seem more appealing. While married men experience multiple perks \u2013 including living longer and earning more money \u2013 women don\u2019t usually benefit from their relationships in the same way. Instead, they bear the brunt of household and child-rearing labour, which can leave working women \u201coverwhelmed and stressed\u201d, says Fort-Martinez.*\n\n*Women also tend to have more close friends than men (in fact, in the US, 15% of men say they have no close friendships at all), meaning they have a better support system both to discuss any marital issues as well as to ease the transition back into single life. It\u2019s also possible these friendships make divorce seem like a more plausible option \u2013 research suggests that if a close friend gets divorced, people\u2019s own chances of divorcing rise by 75%.*\n\n*Add this to the fact that women get primary custody of children in the vast majority of divorce cases, so women may feel they have less to lose when filing for divorce compared to men. And in some ways, they are right \u2013 evidence shows men\u2019s wellbeing tends to*\u00a0[*drop much more dramatically*](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5992251/)\u00a0*immediately following a divorce.*\n\n*But in reality, this effect can be short-lived. \u201cIn the short-term after divorce, men\u2019s overall wellbeing decreases more, and they report higher levels of loneliness,\u201d says Kar. \u201cBut over time that evens out, and women continue to suffer from more chronic, long-term effects including the loss of home ownership, reduced financial means, and increased stress from life as a single parent.\u201d*",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 306,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefh9v",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "How does that show that women are the cause of the failing relationship?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "kzeey89"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefk0y",
                    "author": "CostanzaCrimeFamily",
                    "body": "All it means is that women have more inclination to initiate divorce and give up because they know (with society\u2019s backing) that they have tons of options waiting for them. Or at least that\u2019s what they think. Many women in their 40s for instance get a sobering dose of reality when they are newly single and they aren\u2019t as desired as they were 10 years ago.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfqbze",
                    "author": "Znyper",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/CostanzaCrimeFamily \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20CostanzaCrimeFamily&message=CostanzaCrimeFamily%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzefk0y/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzefk0y"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefklk",
                    "author": "parkway_parkway",
                    "body": "I agree that knowing who initiated doesn't tell you who caused the breakdown, which is often due to both parties to a degree. \n\nHowever it's interesting to look at male-male marriages Vs female-female marriages for clues on how different genders behave. \n\n\"[A 2022 study](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples) of Norway, using data up to 2018, found that divorce rates 20 years post-marriage were 5% lower for male-male marriages compared to male-female marriages and were 29% higher for female-female marriages vs female-male marriages.\"\n\n\"A study of marriage dissolution rates in Sweden spanning the years 1995\u20132012 found that 30% of both male same-sex marriages and heterosexual marriages ended in divorce, whereas the separation rate for female same-sex marriages was 40%\"\n\nAnd then it's also interesting to look at domestic violence in lesbian relationships. \n\n\"[The CDC](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_same-sex_relationships) also stated that 43.8% of lesbian women reported experiencing physical violence, stalking, or rape by their partners. The study notes that, out of those 43.8%, two thirds (67.4%) reported exclusively female perpetrators.\"\n\nIn general seeing that women initiate 80% of divorces and assuming that's evidence of men being at fault is a good example of the [Women are Wonderful](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-are-wonderful_effect) fallacy.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 95,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefvnf",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Where did I ever assume men were at fault? This post isn't about that. But rather that women are not majority at fault. Some may be at fault. Others not. Sometimes its man. Sometimes its women..",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "kzefklk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefr4g",
                    "author": "sanschefaudage",
                    "body": "Divorce rates for lesbians are higher than gays which seems to suggest that women are more likely to leave a mariage than men.\n\n[wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)\n\nOf course it's not a 100% proof: are lesbian women really behaving the same in relationships than heterosexual women but it's another piece of evidence just like the divorce initiation rate.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 19,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeglf4",
                    "author": "alwaysright12",
                    "body": "No, they're not\n\nLesbians tend to get married far quicker, much younger and have kids more than gay men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzefr4g"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzefxtz",
                    "author": "Irhien",
                    "body": "If anything, it would superficially seem that when a divorce is initiated by a woman, the reason the marriage failed was the husband. Non-superficially, I think it just means women more often expect their situation to improve with the divorce, which doesn't say much: could be the judges favoring women during divorces, could be that women are more often the victims of abuse, could be something else.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfj0su",
                    "author": "ReplyOk6720",
                    "body": "Sometimes, getting out of an emotionally unhealthy relationship, is an improvement enough. Many a woman leaving with nothing ng than the clothes on her back, in a shelter. Being alive is an \"improvement\".\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzefxtz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzega2c",
                    "author": "Afghan_Ninja",
                    "body": "It's only been ~50yrs since women weren't able to get mortgages, own credit cards, etc. cheating is hard to prove legally sans video evidence, and abuse (physical, verbal, & emotional) was also mainstream and not often seen as genuine abuse. It is a fact that women have been suffering through unhealthy relationships for the majority of our nation's existence.\n\nFrom an incel perspective, women not continuing to suffer is their problem and not an issue with the relationship itself. Thus women choosing to pursue divorce is a problem of \"allowing\" women agency. \n\nYou won't get a salient counter view from anyone not espousing a deeply ahistorical and misogynistic worldview. And such ppl aren't worthy of consideration, past condemnation.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzejub1",
                    "author": "Admirable_Example524",
                    "body": "Check your timeline 50 years ago was 1974.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzega2c"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzegbro",
                    "author": "INFPneedshelp",
                    "body": "It also means they are the one to start the paperwork process.\u00a0\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeh6yw",
                    "author": "LilSliceRevolution",
                    "body": "Yeah, filing the paperwork alone means nothing. It could be that the other partner is busier or whatever. The woman could not be the one who wants the divorce but still be the one to file the paperwork.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "kzegbro"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzegizj",
                    "author": "Hour-Beautiful-9804",
                    "body": "How dare she take umbrage at my bad behaviour?!? Lol. Perps victim blaming - this is the modern mood. People feeing oppressed because they aren\u2019t allowed to oppress the people they traditionally oppress. One spouse behaves badly and the other is supposed to just put up with it. Nope. No. If one spouse cheats and the other doesn\u2019t want to put up with it they are not the cause because they don\u2019t want to see their spouse run around. And frankly if people don\u2019t want to be married for any reason that\u2019s fine. It doesn\u2019t have to be a failure or a tragedy. That\u2019s just religious people running around wanting life to be some opera.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzff2zu",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": "This is my opinion to. A marriage were one person is being mistreated, or they're both extremely unhappy, is a failure. Divorce would be an improvement in such situations. If someone thinks \"putting up with mistreatment or unhappiness in a marriage just for the sake of not getting a divorce\" makes them a better person, I'd think they were stupid.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzegizj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzehem0",
                    "author": "IronSavage3",
                    "body": "Where are \u201cthey\u201d getting that 80% statistic?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzehhn4",
                    "author": "LongDongSamspon",
                    "body": "On top of women initiating the vast majority of divorce, the lesbian divorce rate is higher than male female couples divorce rate - and the gay male divorce rate is the lowest of all. \n\nOn top of that studies have shown that those with more estrogen (even amongst women) are more likely to express dissatisfaction with a long term relationship.\n\nSo it\u2019s pretty clear if you\u2019re not living in denial that women are the main reason marriages fail - no men in lesbian marriage yet the divorce rate is even higher. As troubling as it may be for some to admit, all the evidence, statistical, anecdotal, and scientific, points to women simply getting tired of long term relationships more often than men.\n\nNow I don\u2019t necessarily think women cheat or abuse then leave more than men, but personally I do think that more often women have a type of feeling of growing less attracted over time and sometimes don\u2019t really understand why (though often they grow to think of the man as responsible and the media likes to portray it that way). \n\nHow often do you hear divorcing women saying \u201cwe\u2019ve\u201d grown apart, or it\u2019s not working. And what they really mean is they\u2019ve lost the feeling and can no longer bear to be touched or with their husband for reasons that aren\u2019t his fault and they can\u2019t help and don\u2019t really understand themselves.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 43,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzei3j6",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Lesbian women are different than straight women who are different from gay men who are different from straight men. Again unless we have the causes of the divorced ... \n\n\"How often do you hear...\" That's anecdotal. I don't hear that all that often. I mostly hear \"I perform all these services on top of work while he does nothing\". but I'm still not gonna base my opinion on my personal experience rather than the stats. \n\nSo you got the stats?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzehhn4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzej1yg",
                    "author": "JayNotAtAll",
                    "body": "I guess it's just a matter of perspective. If you see \"the cause of divorce\" being those who initiate it then you could argue that women are the biggest causes of divorce.\n\nIt is a very simplistic way to view it though as I think the people who just initiate divorce with no reason are in an extreme minority.\n\nA strong argument for why more women initiate divorce is pretty much what you alluded to. Historically, they had very little agency over their lives. Women couldn't have their own bank accounts until the 70s. Just one example over how women just had to deal with the hand they were dealt with. If they had a bad husband, tough shit, just become a mom who drinks wine at 11am.\n\nNow they have more agency over their lives.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 9,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf7hz9",
                    "author": "ModeMysterious3207",
                    "body": "And after marrying a guy for security, and a few years of being supported by him, you can divorce him, get a bunch of his assets, and have even more agency",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzej1yg"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzejjbf",
                    "author": "Horror-Collar-5277",
                    "body": "Woman is supposed to steer relationship.\u00a0\n\n\nMan is supposed to do the work.\n\n\nSometimes woman steers relationship at the behest of fuck buddies instead of husband.\n\n\nIf we just get more people to hyphenate their names we can surely succeed in making the world more beautiful.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -23,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzek49h",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Why are women supposed to steer? Why are men supposed to work. That's just nonsense in my opinion",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 17,
                    "parent_id": "kzejjbf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzejrxk",
                    "author": "Entropy_Drop",
                    "body": "Red pills are assholes. They blame single mothers for their offspring shortcoming, while the absent father, who is the one slacking off, is some kind of victim of the system.\nI just can't justify changing your mind into red pill talking points. Its immoral.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf1ymg",
                    "author": "rizzla092",
                    "body": "You can believe they're assholes but it does not negate the fact that single fathers do significantly better than single mothers who raise degenerates in society.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzejrxk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzekkr6",
                    "author": "VanillaIsActuallyYum",
                    "body": "I'm confused by the premise, honestly. If women are initiating the divorce, does that not imply that the OTHER side is the reason for it? If I stop hanging out with friend X, isn't it generally safe to assume it's because friend X was toxic, not that \\*I\\* was toxic?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 159,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzekqv3",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Nope. You could be a narcissist. And your friend wasn't worshipping you they way you wanted. We have no idea who is at fault.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 48,
                    "parent_id": "kzekkr6"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzelqrb",
                    "author": "VenoVlade",
                    "body": "Women are more likely to end a relationship, because they no longer believe in soulmates. It\u2019s all about the quality of life in the relationship. There\u2019s no desire to suffer or struggle to rebuild or fix the marriage. Just end it and hop on some dick. \n\nMarried guys are much more willing to preserve and maintain. Because they\u2019re dumb enough to believe there is a \u2018one\u2019 out there for them and they\u2019ve already found her.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfp76w",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "No, men stay because they\u2019d rather just cheat but maintain their marriage and household because that\u2019s easier than being a single dad and paying child support and alimony. Women don\u2019t care about starting over so we leave.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzelqrb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzem0gv",
                    "author": "AmbergrisTeaspoon",
                    "body": "One could postulate that women have more to gain from divorce... Usually.\n\nAnd that fact is also, usually, based on choices that women make.. and then regret... usually.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -6,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfp9s2",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "Women don\u2019t regret their divorces. Most people don\u2019t.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzem0gv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzem2ud",
                    "author": "thecountnotthesaint",
                    "body": "Why is the divorce rate higher among lesbians compared to gay men? \n\nhttps://www.simpsonlaw.net/blog/2021/06/rate-of-divorce-for-gay-men-lower-than-for-lesbians/",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfg56f",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": "Imma go ahead and answer your question using your own source.\n\n\"While we see that **66 per cent of same-sex marriages were among females**, nearly three-quarters of same-sex divorces in 2019 were to female couples.\". More lesbian marriages compared to gay marriages to begin with.\n\n\"**Women also tend to get married faster than gay men** and are likelier to have **previously been married**.\" People who have been previously married are more likely to get divorced again, because of age and experience, divorce not feeling as threatening or daunting to go through as the first time etc. \n\n\"**Women do not tolerate marital misconduct** like adultery as much as men do.\" So women are less likely to put up with mistreatment, which is definitely a positive. \n\nAdd these all together, and you get the answer. Hope this helps!",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzem2ud"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzenlgw",
                    "author": "IrrationalDesign",
                    "body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\nIt could say 'women are more likely to initiate steps to break off unsatisfying marriages'. It doesn't say anything about staying in the marriage though, as every divorce 'releases' both parties from the marriage at the same time. It's not like men can stay in the marriages without a woman (obviously only talking about heterosexual marriages)\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzennqk",
                    "author": "Squiiiidwaaard",
                    "body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Heteros in the middle. Gays last. \n\nDisproves everything you just said lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzesqpa",
                    "author": "Thekurdishprince",
                    "body": "Based.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzennqk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeodbf",
                    "author": "GrayJedi1982",
                    "body": "What it DOES mean is that marriage is a bad business deal for most men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzff3oh",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeodbf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeogdq",
                    "author": "BeamTeam032",
                    "body": "It's a stat that conservatives use to blame women for why the divorce rate is so high. As if a man would file for divorce after he cheats on her, or goes into a drunken rage and beats the shit out of her. lmao. \n\nIt's like abortion. It's not the mans fault she got preggo, it's her fault for opening her legs. But if it's her fault, she still doesn't get a say because abortion is wrong. lmao. It's like they want to be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want, and not have to be forced to take responsibility. But that's most conservatives I know.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfppwy",
                    "author": "Znyper",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/BeamTeam032 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20BeamTeam032&message=BeamTeam032%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzeogdq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeogdq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeowxy",
                    "author": "That_North_1744",
                    "body": "Infidelity does not necessarily result in divorce. There are many varying factors that also contribute to the marital breakdown. \nFinances, children, health, abuse, desertion, religion, external family issues, employment changes, priorities differ, etc.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeppdl",
                    "author": "GazBB",
                    "body": "Post seems to be in bad faith as the premise itself is false.\n\nI've never seen people, amass, at least in recent times, blaming the women for initiating divorces. In fact it's the opposite. Women get plenty of sympathy.\n\nYou often hear that women talk about how they fell out of love or checked out of the relationship **a long time ago** and things were just getting dragged along. And then you have a ton of people blaming the said woman's husband and how he apparently abused her or wasn't a good husband to begin with which led to her falling out of love.\n\nIn fact in reality, unless there's actual abuse, women who checked out of the marriage a long time ago should be 100% blamed for terrible communication. It shows that they never valued the relationship and simply tagged along for the ride.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf02ng",
                    "author": "lizcicle",
                    "body": "It is possible that the underlying issues *were* communicated but the other party refused to acknowledge/address them - in fact, this is *often* presented as the case in one way or another. You did give a pass to \"actual abuse\", so this is more like refusing to pull their weight in re: household tasks/rearing children/financial contribution/physical intimacy.\n\n\"Hey, can you stop cheating on me/frothing with rage when I don't buy you flowers every fifteen minutes? It hurts my feelings. Let's see a counsellor and work through our problems.\"  \n\"No lol sounds like a you problem. Fuck your feelings, I'm having fun.\"\n\nI do agree that if the above isn't the case, then the fault lies more on the person who gave up before proposing any kind of solution.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzeppdl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzepzkm",
                    "author": "BigKadoLBx",
                    "body": "Women want their cake and eat it too....\n\nOf course they are the reason a majority of marriages don't last. Give up the beaver \ud83e\uddab and stop whining all the time good grief...",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfez4t",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzepzkm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeq2tv",
                    "author": "Pale_Zebra8082",
                    "body": "After reading through several comments and your responses, I believe this will be difficult to resolve because we don\u2019t all share the same sense of what the \u201creason\u201d for divorce is, primarily. Nor do we all have a shared view of what would constitute a sufficient problem to reasonably warrant initiating a divorce. \n\nIn each case, there are the inciting problems themselves, or claimed problems. Then there is the tolerance for said problem and the commitment to enduring the problem and desire to work through it. Both are factors in the \u201creason\u201d a divorce happens. \n\nYou are repeatedly referring to the former, while many commenters are referring to the latter. \n\nI agree with you that it\u2019s unclear whether men or women are more likely to be the source of the \u201cproblem\u201d. However, it does seem clear that women are much more likely to hit the threshold of giving up on the marriage in the face of the problem than men are. \n\nAs a result, on average, women are contributing to the divorce rate more than men, based solely on that difference. \n\nNow, this does not entail a value judgement on them. One may believe that they are correct to draw the line where they do and think it\u2019s right for them to cut their losses and walk more readily. But that\u2019s a separate question from whether or not they are the \u201creason\u201d for the divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeqj2w",
                    "author": "MrGraeme",
                    "body": ">So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nThey're happening because women are initiating divorce. The underlying reason isn't relevant because the relationship hasn't *failed* until one or more partners opt out (file for divorce, etc). That's what kills the relationship. Everything up until that point is conflict within relationships.\n\nThe problem you'll face when seeking a *reason* is that *reasons* go the whole way down. Watch:\n\n1. Man divorces woman. Reason: She cheated on him.\n\n2. Woman cheats on man. Reason: He wasn't giving her the attention she needed.\n\n3. Man wasn't giving attention to woman. Reason: She demanded he work two jobs.\n\n4. Woman demanded man work two jobs. Reason: He had to support the family while he stayed home with the kids.\n\nWe could keep going, but the point that I'm making is that you can pick any arbitrary \"reason\" for the breakdown of a relationship. Ultimately, the *reason* isn't what causes the relationship to fail - terminating the relationship is what causes the relationship to fail. \n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nUnsatisfactory is not an objective measurement. It's entirely dependent on what the individual person considers unsatisfactory. If *your* definition of unsatisfactory causes you to break up with your partner, then you're the reason the relationship failed. \n\nThe exception to this is conditional relationships, where both parties have a clear and mutually agreed upon understanding of what behaviours or actions will terminate the relationship. Violating a condition in such a relationship could be considered the same as terminating the relationship.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzex4yd",
                    "author": "lizcicle",
                    "body": "Wouldn't your last paragraph be more the rule than the exception, at least in North America/most western countries? Often wedding vows themselves will specifically mention \"faithfulness/constant faith\" (not cheating), \"sickness and health\", \"love and cherish\" (not abusing each other), etc. *Generally* when people step outside marriages or abuse/assault their partners here it's frowned upon and considered a violation of the metaphorical \"contract\" of marriage. Someone opts out of that contract by breaking their word/vow. \n\nI do understand, however, that there are other cultures where fucking around or enduring some form of what we would call abuse in one way or another is considered just part of a marriage, but from what accounts I've heard, the divorce rates in those cases/countries is much lower - ie. the \"contract\" isn't being broken, it's just part of the deal. (disclaimer: haven't checked those stats, anecdotal evidence, i've been wrong at least 2 or 3 times in my life before and it could be the case here)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzeqj2w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeqjfa",
                    "author": "IceBlue",
                    "body": "No idea why you think anyone has any valid argument against this. People who file for divorce are usually the ones that feel aggrieved so it makes no sense to act like they are the reason why the relationship went sour.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2otf",
                    "author": "YetteMan",
                    "body": "For my divorce, I filed the paperwork even though I did not want a divorce because my ex wife moved in with her parents and wouldn\u2019t let me see my daughter for months. I filed specifically to get a court order forcing her to give me access to my daughter and since it was started in my name it stayed that way.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzeqjfa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeqpm2",
                    "author": "Deaf-Leopard1664",
                    "body": ">All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\n\n\nAnd all this says is, women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages, they themselves more than  possibly ruined/were the a\\*holes in. So when it became unsatisfactory as consequences for their behavior, they naturally wanted out. This could easily make 60% out of your 80%, we never know.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfomdj",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "What? People are equally responsible for making unhappy marriages. It is not a sex thing and you all sound like little incels trying to blame one or the other.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeqpm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzer33z",
                    "author": "underboobfunk",
                    "body": "It means the opposite as far as I\u2019m concerned.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfexat",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzer33z"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzery04",
                    "author": "jdaddy15911",
                    "body": "This probably isn\u2019t going to change your view, but I interpreted the data the same way. I thought, \u201cSo. That means 80% of men do some dumb shit.\u201d",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzese6u",
                    "author": "ManYonX",
                    "body": "It makes sense.  In general men pay alimony.   If I'm in an unhappy marriage and I get money coming in to bail, I'm tsjong the money.  Divorce initiating is aligned to economic incentives.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeszhf",
                    "author": "Sweaty_Condition6293",
                    "body": "Quite literally, by definition, it is the reason they fail. STFU",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeziea",
                    "author": "Icy_Sunlite",
                    "body": "Not by definition. If a man is actively committing adultery or constantly getting drunk and beating up his wife to the point of near death, for example, he is at least just as much to blame.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzeszhf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzet0az",
                    "author": "FugakuWickedEyes",
                    "body": "Divorce happens because both man and woman succumb to desire. It could be another person, another life, etc. The reason women initiate divorce slightly more is because it is more socially acceptable for them to do so. Fortunately I see men and women be equal very soon, which should \n\n\\- decrease marriages\n\n\\- even out who initiates divorces",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzettci",
                    "author": "Physical-Bus6025",
                    "body": "It\u2019s not meant to imply they\u2019re in the wrong. When red pillers use that argument, it\u2019s to simply note women 80% of the time end relationships.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeumth",
                    "author": "MLeek",
                    "body": "This stat says nothing about who is \u201cat fault\u201d and everything about who does the labour of filing. \n\nAnd that part shouldn\u2019t be at all surprising.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzev3qf",
                    "author": "Ok_Deal7813",
                    "body": "Women, as a collective group, pick partners based on emotion rather than logic, so they partner with dirt bags often, and women are also fickle so they'll quit on a marriage easier. Either way, being divorced is a huge red flag.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfoqr6",
                    "author": "dustandchaos",
                    "body": "The fuck?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzev3qf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzev4ko",
                    "author": "neverknowwhatsnext",
                    "body": "Men cheat. Women betray.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfeugb",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: \n\n> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.  \n\nComments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and \"written upvotes\" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzev4ko"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexess",
                    "author": "Hot-Collection3273",
                    "body": "This is a pretty popular viewpoint. I thought it was well known and documented that women have better support systems that allow them to leave marriages easier.\n\nHow do you even characterize someone being \u201cat fault\u201d in a divorce on a moral level? \n\nOn some base level, yes the person who files is at fault for the divorce. They made the character judgement and decided to get married, then decided their judgement was wrong and warranted a divorce. \n\nIs it their fault the marriage was shitty enough to warrant the filing? Can\u2019t really determine that based on who filed",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexljv",
                    "author": "Objective_Reality42",
                    "body": "Women\u2019s tolerance for discomfort in a relationship is significantly lower than men. Their sense of commitment and loyalty to their children\u2019s future and well being is secondary to their own selfish need to see if the grass is greener. \nWomen initiate the divorce due to the court system heavily favoring them, but usually end up less happy than those who fixed their marriage instead of running away. \nA failed relationship is defined by the outcome. Women filing for divorce is evidence of their own failure to work things out rather than put in a legitimate effort to fix things. Therefore women are at fault for the marriage failing the majority of the time. The commitment you make when getting married is to work things through side by side through thick and thin. Filing is an admission you made a promise you can\u2019t live up to.\n\nStay single, kings. Marriage is way too risky.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4y20",
                    "author": "Beneficial-Gur-8136",
                    "body": "Yes. Please stay single.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "kzexljv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexrrz",
                    "author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
                    "body": "From a strictly logical standpoing, you're correct that women mainly filing for divorce does not necessarily mean they are the reason the relationship/mariage has failed.    \n\n\nHowever, it \\*does\\* strongly indicate that women are the ones primaily giving up on failing relationships, instead of sticking around and working on them.  (You basically acknowledge as much when you note women being the ones leaving unsatisfactory marriages.  I'm guessing most marriages are unsatisfactory at some point to men, which is a big reason many cheat.)  \n\n\nThe burden of persuation/proof should therefore be on you, or anyone else claiming men are the primary problem, to explain why men are usually causing relationships to fail, with women simply responding to completly dead marriages when they file for divorce.    \n\n\n(Many men are caught completely off guard when their wife leaves.  Meaning that even if she was unhappy, she never really articulated it to the guy, or indicated the importance of desired changes.)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf0es8",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I never claim men are the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzexrrz"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexwj5",
                    "author": "JohnConradKolos",
                    "body": "Trying to \"win\" and say \"women are blah blah\" or \"men are blah blah\" doesn't seem overly productive.\n\nBut it might be useful to understand how men and women behave differently in some scenarios.\n\nTwo ideas for understanding this better, so that we all might be a bit more comfortable with how the world is, and so we can be kind to one another.\n\n1. Consider the flip side of your statement: \"women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\"  It might be something like:  \"men are more likely to stay in unsatisfactory marriages and try to fix them rather than dissolve them.\"   But, as you point out, this doesn't give us any information about why the marriage was unsatisfactory in the first place.  If men are less likely to initiate divorce, perhaps they have more resilience in the face of some hardship, or perhaps they are just easier to please and find more marriages \"satisfactory\".\n\n2.  One option for trying to get a control group would be to look at same sex couples.  Do gay couples or lesbian couples get divorced more or less frequently than each other, or heterosexual marriages? \n\nIt appears as if lesbians couples get divorced about twice as frequently as gay couples. \n\nVia this Wikipedia link: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce\\_of\\_same-sex\\_couples#:\\~:text=The%20lesbian%20divorce%20rate%20is,Male%20divorce%20rate%20%3D%207%25).\n\nThe lesbian divorce rate is much higher than the divorce rate between men: in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year (i.e., Lesbian divorce rate = 14%, Gay Male divorce rate = 7%).[^(\\[14\\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#cite_note-14)\n\nSo, while it is possible that women divorce men because of unsatisfactory behavior, other men seem to satisfied.  Also, women not only find being married to a man unsatisfactory, they also find being married to a women unsatisfactory.\n\nAgain, the point of any of this should not be to be judgmental, but rather we should seek to be understanding.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfej7l",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": ">in the same period on average 100 women and 45 men divorced per year\n\nI don't know if this is included in the study you referenced, I don't speak Dutch so I couldn't read it, but it's important to note that lesbian marriages are way more common in the Netherlands than gay marriages.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzexwj5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexxg6",
                    "author": "LegacyLivesOnGP",
                    "body": "I believe cheating between men and women are about equal. There is a perceived economic benefit in many cases for a woman to initiate divorce so if she finds another partner she will formalize the divorce. But if a man finds another partner he will keep it on the low with the reverse occurring: an incentive to remain in the marriage.\n\n\nSo I dont think the right conversation is to determine who to allocate blame to. That just results in a gender war. The discussion is more, who has the most to gain from a divorce? Would men divorce equal to women if they had the same incentives? My theory is yes",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzexyrd",
                    "author": "KorLee",
                    "body": "I wholeheartedly agree with your statetment that divorce percentages do not equate to who was at fault. However, I think clarification on what you define as \"fail\" is necessary. \n\nA relationship could be \"failed\" while the two members of the party are still legally married. If 80%, or more accurately 69% of divorces are initiated by women, would it be fair to say that women are the majority of why relationships *end*? \n\nBy approaching it in this light, it not only acknowledges that there may be many reasons to why the relationship \"failed\" in the first place, while also acknowledging the statistic that women initiate divorces substantially higher than men. It's a more neutral way of looking at the statistic as we don't place blame on whos fault the divorce was.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzey6rj",
                    "author": "Own_Set_6148",
                    "body": "Most divorces and break ups are not due to cheating.\u00a0\n\nWomen are more emotional and affected by social pressure. It\u2019s very common for them to make decisions based off of what their female friends and even social media tell them is \u201cright\u201d.\u00a0\n\nThen you have western culture telling women that they don\u2019t need a man and encouraging separation and independence when they don\u2019t get what they want.\u00a0\n\nMarriage is a losing proposition for western men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfcp2g",
                    "author": "Itchy-Status3750",
                    "body": "Lmfao it\u2019s a losing proposition when you\u2019re a jackass. Women are not more emotional just because you think so.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "kzey6rj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeyf0t",
                    "author": "Terrible_Length007",
                    "body": "Well when generally the man will lose much more than the women in the divorce of course they are more hesitant.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeykl8",
                    "author": "bad-brains13",
                    "body": "Recent data provided by the mental health community reports that individuals or couples seeking help due infidelity, nearly 70% of the infidelity was committed by the female within heterosexual relationships.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfbnrc",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": "Source?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzeykl8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzeywcg",
                    "author": "thegreatmaster7051",
                    "body": "Aren't lesbians the most likely to get divorced?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzez5wq",
                    "author": "Happy_Weakness_1144",
                    "body": "I think your proposition can be disproved pretty simply, actually.\n\nYour position presumes a rational, reasonable, suite of standards and if those aren't met, she ends the marriage.\n\nThat's a tautology. You can't assume that the standards are rational, or reasonable.\n\nThe fault for someone failing to meet a standard can be because of BOTH parties. One can fail to meet reasonable standards, and another can set standards most people cannot meet.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 22,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf03mm",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I literally mentioned that. The fault can be the woman the man or neither",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzez5wq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzezjz6",
                    "author": "bad-brains13",
                    "body": "Although I\u2019m not entirely sure how accurate the numbers are, it\u2019s widely reported that lesbian marriages end in divorce almost most twice as often as heterosexual marriages.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzezpf7",
                    "author": "Fantactic1",
                    "body": "The 80% stats aren\u2019t necessarily to prove who broke the relationship (if it\u2019s mostly one person).  \n\nRather, it\u2019s to prove the point that women can feel confident they\u2019ll be getting the better end of the deal in divorce proceedings.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf25kr",
                    "author": "goldyacht",
                    "body": "Well initiating divorce imo is the reason for the relationship failing, as once you\u2019re at that point it\u2019s likely over. It\u2019s also easier for women to divorce as they are less likely come out on the losing end if you look at it this way. \n\nYears ago if a women with kids divorced they probably would have had it pretty rough but that\u2019s not the case anymore. Now more than likely they will get the kids, half or more of family assets, child support or alimony etc. Compared to men who will likely lose their kids, half their assets and still have to contribute financially to a partner who they are no longer with. It\u2019s not really a great deal for men. \n\nRelationships work because both parties benefit but after marriage for a man it\u2019s unlikely he will be in a great spot after a divorce especially if kids are involved. A lot of women also have better support systems than men and will no longer have to deal with things like housework for a husband which is an added benefit as most women will probably be doing the brunt of it. \n\nWhile I don\u2019t think the sole reason is always on women, I do think they are in a lot better position to leave marriage then most men so they will likely take that option more times than men who probably believe their life will get worse whether the relationship is greatest or not.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2bv4",
                    "author": "Turbulent_Emu_637",
                    "body": "\"to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death. This is my solemn vow.\" \\*unless of course I change my mind. no big. - 80% of women?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2ncd",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Have you looked through the peoples vow and if it includes till death do we part?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf2bv4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2if1",
                    "author": "meadowbelle",
                    "body": "The talking point re: women initiring divorce is simply to attempt to shame women for having a backbone and leaving. It's not often mentioned that women will do this, even at great financial cost and knowing they'll need to do most of the childcare solo, which says to me that the situation they are in is pretty damn bad",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2iqf",
                    "author": "lumberjack_jeff",
                    "body": "Perhaps not, but it is strong evidence that contrary to popular opinion, women don't think they are harmed by divorce as much as men do.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2mck",
                    "author": "Knave7575",
                    "body": "Women initiate divorces because they have the most the gain.  The disparity reflects the unfairness of the family law system rather than who is to \u201cblame\u201d.  \n\nA competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time.  At best, she walks away with the kids and child support, and is free to remarry.   \n\nA competent father at best will get the kids half the time (unless the mother is an epic screwup).   Even worse, the father has a reasonable chance of losing the kids entirely, which is emotionally and financially devastating.  \n\nIf either parent was just as likely to end up with the kids, divorces would probably be equally initiated by both men and women.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfbjo4",
                    "author": "bsffrn97",
                    "body": ">A competent mother who initiates a divorce will, at worst, get the kids half the time.\n\nCorrection, [will at worst be murdered.](https://vawnet.org/sc/scope-problem-intimate-partner-homicide-statistics)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf2mck"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf2sb3",
                    "author": "Flimsy_Dimension_958",
                    "body": "My husband wanted me to do all the work for the divorce. He didn't want to be with me but didn't want to divorce?? So I get it. In my experience they want to be seen as \"See! I tried everything and she still left\"",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzncajl",
                    "author": "MzFrazzle",
                    "body": "When I finally got the divorce done my ex said \"whew, that was a mission!\"\n\nFOR WHOM????? I did all the paperwork, went to the sheriff of the court twice (my ex moved to a new district), couriered the paperwork myself between the court departments, went to court twice (alone). \n\nMy ex's tag line was \"I was going to do that\" - especially when the dishes were growing blue mould by the time I cracked and did them. Getting a dishwasher did not improve the situation.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzf2sb3"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf38jh",
                    "author": "ilivalkyw",
                    "body": "No fault divorces are the reason. There is financial gain to be had by wrecking a marriage and then walking away from it. A woman can cheat, leave her husband, and take all his stuff...and kids. So, lots do.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf3j5r",
                    "author": "rudster",
                    "body": "I don't think even your cheating point would answer the question. A lot of marriages have dead bedrooms. Does a partner who \"cheats\" on their spouse who refused sex for a year, because that partner smells bad to them, because the other partner is on medication, because their partner because because...\n\nPoint being people are complicated, and there's no simple stat that can assign fault. \n\nThere are some hints that can guide one's intuition. Like what happens to the divorce rate after certain events, like sudden change of income, medical diagnosis, etc",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf3vfq",
                    "author": "InterestMost4326",
                    "body": "No, it means women are more likely to consider a marriage unsatisfactory on an earlier part of its decline than men. And more likely to consider even a marriage whose quality is stagnant, unsatisfactory.\n\nSo if a marriage is declining, on average the woman will sound the alarm earlier than the man.\n\nThe woman isn't right or wrong, women are just naturally more sensitive to and aware of negative things than men, because they're more vulnerable. The psychological research bears this out.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf40gp",
                    "author": "claratheresa",
                    "body": "Why would men ever file? They would lose all the benefits of marriage and would have to split assets. By forcing it on her to file after her tolerating his shitty behavior he can stall and play the victim.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf443f",
                    "author": "die_eating",
                    "body": "It takes two to tango.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzonpp8",
                    "author": "Ansuz07",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/die_eating \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\r\n\r\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \r\n\r\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20die_eating&message=die_eating%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/-/kzf443f/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \r\n\r\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf443f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4jbt",
                    "author": "inkstickart2017",
                    "body": "Uh, why do you want to change your view?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4jlx",
                    "author": "reddituserjl",
                    "body": "Correlation is not causation, looking at only who initiates divorce means little to nothing about why a divorce happened. Ice cream sales go up with crime, the real reason? People steal more in the summer. Unless you have a source where divorced people are put in a study and then data is analyzed there\u2019s no substance for who and why marriages fail and where the blame is from.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf4zf5",
                    "author": "ShoalsCreek",
                    "body": "My ex would have rather tried to kill me again for the fourth time than get a divorce. Had to leave in the middle of the night. Best decision for both of us.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhygjw",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf4zf5"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf5kmt",
                    "author": "Curious_Working5706",
                    "body": "Someone said this to me the other day. Like, they genuinely believe that women are 100% at fault for \u201cending the marriage\u201d because they have decided to start the proceedings for divorce (usually after something their husbands have done).\n\nThis is like saying that women are at fault for their men going to prison for beating them to near death because *they* decided to dial 911.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf61yi",
                    "author": "ModeMysterious3207",
                    "body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nIn other words, women are more likely to be faithless and abandon their marriages as soon as their husbands aren't useful.\n\n> So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. \n\nWomen marry for security and safety.  Once they are able to provide those for themselves they no longer need a husband.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf6dri",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Source.. On useful\n\nAgain source.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf61yi"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf676b",
                    "author": "adw802",
                    "body": "Women may not be to blame for why a relationship is failing but the statistic does prove that it is overwhelmingly women that are giving up on failing relationships. Not a moral judgement - it could be that some women have very good reason to call it quits.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf6lgo",
                    "author": "Purple_Screen3628",
                    "body": "The demise of a relationship is the fault of both people.. degrees and levels of fault varies.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf7fez",
                    "author": "ILoveAnAsianBilat",
                    "body": "Men are not more likely to cheat.. that's a common misconception. Women cheat just as often and they are less likely to get caught. Women are more careful because the financial fallout of cheating is usually more pronounced for them. So that skews the statistics. Women cheat just as often.\n\nAs far as divorce being initiated.. it is true that women initiate a much higher percentage of divorces. Since they cheat as much as men, it seems like you said, they are just less willing to stay in unsatisfactory relationships. Men are more willing to maintain the status quo and keep things they way they are.. despite not being happy. That doesn't mean one party is more at fault than the other. It just means women are more willing to call it quits sooner under the same circumstances than men are. I'm not sure of the psychology behind this.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf8guu",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Cheating just as often. Citation?\n\nThat said i can agree fault is not always one or the other",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "kzf7fez"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf7ty2",
                    "author": "Smergmerg432",
                    "body": "I feel like red pill can swap any thing around. If they\u2019re the ones who finally get fed up enough to divorce, it sounds like men are the ones who keep messing up. (Obviously, not true all round, but failing to see the logic beyond victim blaming)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf8jmn",
                    "author": "linqingfeng810",
                    "body": "While it's true that women initiate the majority of divorces, this statistic alone doesn't explain the complexities behind the reasons for relationship breakdowns. It's important to consider the social, emotional, and financial factors that contribute to such decisions. Often, women may face societal pressures or have less financial independence, which can delay the decision to initiate divorce even when the relationship is already failing. Additionally, the initiation of divorce does not necessarily imply fault or blame on one party; it could simply be an acknowledgment that the relationship is no longer sustainable for both individuals involved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzf9jn7",
                    "author": "popobono",
                    "body": "Read your own post\n\n>All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages \n\nYou just disproved your own belief using the exact argument you\u2019re trying to disprove. You said women are unsatisfied easier thus they leave more. This is the general redpill argument on why women are at fault, because they are portrayed as being \u201ceternally incapable of being satisfied\u201d",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzj7szm",
                    "author": "Prestigious-Phase131",
                    "body": "They didn't say women are more likely to not be satisfied, they said they're more likely to end the marriage when unsatisfied.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzf9jn7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfa78u",
                    "author": "supastyles",
                    "body": "Your CMV uses a statistic at odds with your \"view\", then uses hypothetical anecdotal scenarios to back up your \"view\".\nThen ask for empirical data to convince you!?\n\nYour \"view\" is a baseless opinion that you are asking anyone to sway you.  \n\nYou started this conversation and brought up *A* stat and provided 0 actual reasons why it is wrong, or why your view is right.  \n\n\nI'm definitely not a red pill but that's Just Lazy! (You're starting out by making them look good, \ud83d\ude14)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfc5pu",
                    "author": "Salty_Sky5744",
                    "body": "If anything I\u2019d say this is proof that they\u2019re usually not the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfch8w",
                    "author": "thapussypatrol",
                    "body": "Hypergamy dictates that women will have a higher tendency in the current age to separate from their partners (current age = women now have equal economic status yet more than equal access to sex/relationships); men aren't hypergamous; they're not even necessarily more infidelious because cheating as a men is naturally more challenging than cheating as a woman, seeing as men are *way* more likely to say yes to casual (or even more serious yet scandalous) sex than women are in society. Women with hypergamy, being more picky, means that they're also more likely to be less satisfied with what they have compared with men whom tend to be a lot more centred, confident and satisfied with their lives on balance; men tend to find their own happiness whereas women tend to require it provided by their relationship/partner (sorry, that's not that controversial)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzguhue",
                    "author": "zouss",
                    "body": "Lol you really are throwing out pseudoscientific bullshit like it's proven fact. \"Women are hypergamous and more emotional\" where's your evidence for this bro? For a rational man you don't seem to have much critical thinking ability",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "kzfch8w"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfftp1",
                    "author": "Electrical_King4147",
                    "body": "The belief stems from the idea that women hold the power to initiate relationships primarily, since they are the gender who is in higher demand ie men pursue women primarily, women are seen as the prize rather than men as an aggregate. If you look at it from that angle it means that a relationship happens because of a woman's choice, who she chooses for herself, therefor if the relationship fails for whatever reason it is her fault as well since the relationship exists as a result of her choice ie she either picked really badly and had enough, or she picked well and treated that person really badly therefor drove him away. Them starting most divorces means the former of picking badly and then choosing to leave therefor it is ultimately her fault.\n\n  \nObviously it's a hyper simplified logic but if you look at it from that perspective then yea ok. If she wanted x, she should have found someone who also wanted x and not y and been clear about what she wanted in a relationship and made sure the other person also wanted that too. Obviously people can lie, and people can also miss signs or be naive.\n\n  \nIt's basically placing blame. Sometimes someone is more at fault for something ending than the other person, sometimes it's no ones fault, sometimes its everyones fault. For whatever reason women are the ones who are doing most of the divorcing. I'm assuming guys who don't like marriage or want commitment will avoid it. Maybe there's some guys who are loyal to a fault and getting divorced by trashy wives who scapegoat them, maybe there's some guys who are the misogyny classic trope and as soon as they get married turn into a megadouche and eventually get divorce. Who knows. If you wanna know the intricate details of every situation you need cameras everywhere. It's otherwise anecdote and conjecture.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfg2l9",
                    "author": "SnooPandas2078",
                    "body": "I think a lot of people are kind of missing what OP is saying...\n\nThat filing for divorce =/= ruining the relationship.\n\nDamn.\n\nI agree with OP.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfgm4e",
                    "author": "RealisticLime8665",
                    "body": "This is the view of every woman with a cluster B personality disorder.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfhnwu",
                    "author": "LucinaIsMyTank",
                    "body": "That\u2019s a lot of mental gymnastics for that one captain. A better argument would be how women probably are quicker at realizing when relationships are unhealthy due to genetics giving them higher EQ.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfhpii",
                    "author": "Organic_Muffin280",
                    "body": "Women destroy the relationship because they are the more emotionally oriented ones. But men screw up by getting lazy and make women lose their feelings",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfi6wl",
                    "author": "Sc00tzy",
                    "body": "I bet men would initiate more if they didn\u2019t typically lose half their shit in the process",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzncfn9",
                    "author": "MzFrazzle",
                    "body": "They 'lose half their shit' because their wives sacrifice their careers, health and earning potential for years raising offspring.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfi6wl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfi8ms",
                    "author": "Arervia",
                    "body": "Women get money when they divorce, that's why they do it, the law is rigged for them to initiate divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfjouo",
                    "author": "Critical_Sherbet7427",
                    "body": "80% is a percentage too high",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfk4yl",
                    "author": "underboobfunk",
                    "body": "Isn\u2019t it typically the wronged party who files for divorce?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgp5ln",
                    "author": "KGmagic52",
                    "body": "No. Look up no fault divorce. She files just because \"she's not happy\" anymore.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfk4yl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfkrxn",
                    "author": "Naus1987",
                    "body": "I always figured it was because men initiate relationships. \n\nPeople who initiate always want the relationship more than the receiver. So they\u2019re less likely to call it quits.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkikpi",
                    "author": "GloomyOffice6002",
                    "body": "Nice display of willful blindness to the fact the social script - for both men AND women - is still written such that men are the pursuers. Women can only \"gatekeep\" to the men who approach their gate. Touch grass.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfkrxn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfm0so",
                    "author": "Sn0fight",
                    "body": "In my opinion men are much more comfortable staying miserable.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfn62v",
                    "author": "jakeofheart",
                    "body": "Lesbian divorces have a 65% to 75% divorce rate.\n\nIf it\u2019s even worse when you remove men from the equation, then it\u2019s likely that men are not the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhm0n2",
                    "author": "youvelookedbetter",
                    "body": "There are lots of other factors that go into those situations though. You can't actually compare heterosexual marriages and homosexual marriages (which have not been around for that long) in good faith.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfn62v"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfn9qd",
                    "author": "Kfrr",
                    "body": "70%*  \n\nIt's still an alarming statistic, especially when you couple it with the fact that 79.9% of custodial parents are women.  \n\nStatistically speaking, entering a marriage from a man's perspective means that you have a 40% chance to divorce. Of that 40%, there a 70% chance that it was initiated by the woman and an 80% chance she gets the kids.  \n\nRegardless of the *reason* that a y specific marriage might fail, there's always going to be bad eggs that know they're significantly more likely to get the kids if they decide they don't want to be with the man anymore.  \n\nTerrifying statistics, especially from a dude's perspective.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfnin8",
                    "author": "KitchenSchool1189",
                    "body": "Most of the women I've known are self possessed malcontents. Fortunately for me my wife and her friends are not in that category.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfp09o",
                    "author": "Digitalanalogue_",
                    "body": "In lesbian marriages theyre 100%. Soo\u2026.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfqnwy",
                    "author": "MGT1111",
                    "body": "Women don't file for divorce in unsatisfsctory marriage but they file for divorce in whatever mariages they are, satisfactory too. They file for divorce because the system aims at favoring women, is set at destroying men, and made it a profitable business for the women. Having divorced the man, they can get his money, take his children, continue to the next man, divorce him and so on while still getting state money. All it shows, it's women having zero commitment to working on their marriage but once the slightest problem has occurred running away and only exploiting the system which is happy in doing so. \n\nEven, in theory the claim was true and women divorce in unsatisfactory marriages, the lack of symmetry only shows the bias in female favour as men have to stay in marriages even when being abused by women,  being cheated on by them, exploited, taken advantage and so on. This has nothing to do with redpilled men, oh, no, but it has to do with the attempt of silencing everyone with the claim of them being redpilled which is a common misandrist tactic applied by man hating feminists. The question and subsequently reason of why relationships fail is more pervasive than this statistic but can be attributed to the same source. For men it's simply about risk management and this statistic is just a smal fraction in the big picture and puzzle \n\nIn our world, of course, it is o.k.to blame man for everything, no matter what it is but to criticize women well that's a blasphemy against the holy supreme gender who never does wrong. I actually do not want to change your mind. It's like to ask a racist to stop hating whatever group of people they dislike. The truth is that women file tbe majority of divorces is that women are the most priviliged group of society and can afford it. The ones that can't afford it, don't file for divorce or are unable to do it even if they want. Well, that's upsets you, the break up of the status quo, that someone dares to criticize women too and not only men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfrwle",
                    "author": "Texan2116",
                    "body": "I wonder if....this has to do with the fact that the women,know they will be able to date pretty soon after?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfvr5e",
                    "author": "justtrashtalk",
                    "body": "too many men openly say they waited until she did. I KNOW some who did. women are, more emotional sure, more emotionally intelligent than men. they know when its over....some men are: I'm not hitting you, not abusing you, not cheating, this is fine. women got a limited time to find a spouse, men can conceive into their 80's.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfvrz0",
                    "author": "Environmental-Ad5551",
                    "body": "Men and women are similarly unfaithful, unpleasant, and duplicitous. On the other hand, women are far more likely to be awarded custody in any contested divorce. Thats the real reason: women have less to lose.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kznh1zq",
                    "author": "freakydeku",
                    "body": "men simply give women custody\u2026",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzfvrz0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfxrtm",
                    "author": "Old-Sock-9321",
                    "body": "It may mean they are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages. It may also mean they have a much lower threshold for what they deem an unsatisfactory marriage. The latter could be mean the women are at fault, since marriage is supposed to be through thick and thin.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfyv65",
                    "author": "Total_Yankee_Death",
                    "body": "Across multiple countries lesbian marriages are [substantially more likely to end in divorce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#Divorce_rates) than gay male or heterosexual marriages. \n\nThere's a common denominator here and it isn't men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgt2tv",
                    "author": "88NORMAL_J",
                    "body": "I still haven't seen a decent rebuttal against this point yet",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfyv65"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfyvm2",
                    "author": "tulipthegreycat",
                    "body": "There weren't as many divorces before because women didn't have rights. It is very hard to leave when you can't own property or have your own bank account. Or if the most money you can make is 50% lower than a man's. \n\nWomen initiate divorces because they can and no longer need to put up with mens terrible behaviors. \n\nMen have to catch up on learning how to behave like equal, respectful, loving partners. Many of which weren't raised to be that way. \n\nIn the future, it will become 50/50, but it will take years of society growing and forcing men to behave as equal partners and feel safe to behave as an equal partner without societal ridicule for that to change. Essentially, women's right and the ability to say no to men and provide for themselves instead is shifting faster than the societal shift for men to learn to respect women and treat them as equals in a relationship, and for men to feel safe acting to behave that way without ridicule. \n\nYou can see it in the reason why women leave. And you can see it in the slow shift that it isn't 80% of women initiating anymore. It is still more women than men, but it will take time for society to full shift as new generations of men are raised to treat their spouses as equals. \n\nAnd to be fair, I would like to point out that there are plenty of women who don't treat their partner equally, and have a toxic fake view feminism who think they are feminists, but are really misandrists. And it wouldn't surprise me at all if their husband's left them either. But as of now, there are more men who don't treat their partners right than women stemming from societal misogyny, which is, hopefully, slowly dying away. \n\nBoth women and men cheat. Both women and men can lose their libido. Both women and men can be disrespectful and distant. Both women and men can grow apart and change. But currently, men are more likely to push all the chores and child-rearing onto women, and men are more likely to be looked down on if they are not the bread winner or if they do chores and child-rearing. There's a lot of women power and women empowerment in society fighting misogyny. But there's not many people fighting how misogyny treats men poorly, too- there's needs to be more people fighting for men to feel safe to do traditionally feminine tasks so that when they aren't the breadwinner they don't break down and become assholes because of insecurities. They need to take initiative in maintaining their household with daily tasks and chores without being asked by just using their eyes to see what needs to be done. Neither person should be the one making lists of chores and asking the other to do them. It should be a conversation of all tasks that need to be done, and then you divide them evenly. And you understand that sometimes the other needs help - even if loading the dishwasher isn't your chore, you do it when the other person is sick so they can rest, and they do the same for you when you are sick. Even if someone is sick for a long period, chance are the other person will become sick for a long period at some point in their life too if you live long enough and stay together. Speaking of that, something like 90% (please find actual percentage, I read about it a while back) of men will divorce their wife if she develops a life-threatening illness. \n\nSo my opinion is that it comes down to misogyny within society that leads to men not acting as equal partners within a marriage for many reasons.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": -2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgv16x",
                    "author": "88NORMAL_J",
                    "body": "When it comes down to it the lesbian divorce rate is twice that of married gay men. There is no way to blame men for that. Women are worse then men at maintaining marriages. It's ok to say that you know. Women have higher pain tolerance then men. It's just differences it's okay for them to be there.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzfyvm2"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzfzni9",
                    "author": "AzureDreamer",
                    "body": "I think anyone with life experience can attest there are great fabulous reasons for divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg31xt",
                    "author": "Threash78",
                    "body": "We don't have to just look at straight couples. There is also the fact that lesbian couples have higher divorce rates than straight couples and straight couples have higher divorce rates than gay male couples. I mean, end of the day it depends on what you mean by \"reason\", if women start the majority of divorces then at it's more basic point they are the reason.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg4orv",
                    "author": "DamnColdVampires",
                    "body": "Alsoooo\u2026if I didn\u2019t take care of anything, nothing would ever have happened! From the beginning to the end of my marriage. So there\u2019s also that.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg51f0",
                    "author": "Winter_Ad4517",
                    "body": "If women are not the reason for majority of divorces then a marriage which has only men must have the highest divorces rate and marriages with only women must be the happiest.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg5mkp",
                    "author": "NYdude777",
                    "body": "Women initiate at a wildly higher rate because they have alot more to gain.  Many States have laws that HIGHLY favor the female monetarily and with custody when kids are involved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg64bz",
                    "author": "JesseDx",
                    "body": "It's not that either is more \"at fault\" but that men are more likely to get completely fucked over in divorce court (and thus generally are more hesitant to file). \"Cheaper to keep her\" is the popular refrain, though it's not something I'd ever be willing to endure personally",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg6tqu",
                    "author": "jasonhn",
                    "body": "most divorces don't happen due to infidelity but rather a growing divide in what a woman expects from the relationship vs what the man expects and women tend to have much higher expectations.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgo6e3",
                    "author": "KGmagic52",
                    "body": "Women get relationship FOMO more than men.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzg6tqu"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg76ve",
                    "author": "sczmrl",
                    "body": "> All it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nThis is true under the assumption that a marriage alway satisfy both parties in the same way. But a marriage may be unsatisfactory for a woman and not for a man.\n\nOk, so it\u2019s more common for women to find a marriage unsatisfactory with respect to men? No, because this would be true under the assumption that if a man and a woman are in an unsatisfactory marriage they would react in the same way. But it may happen that a man is worried that he may have to pay alimony while the woman may feel it as an incentive to leave.\n\nA stat is just a measure of something and will not describe anything more than that. You need to measure several things to a have an overview of the world.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzg84qk",
                    "author": "mrdunnigan",
                    "body": "Well\u2026. First one has to make a distinction between a marriage under God and a \u201cmarriage\u201d under the State because the  particular OATHS are *radically* different and so the respective *divorces* are just NOT EQUAL.\n\nAfter making this distinction, one can understand *viscerally* why one oath is much harder/more consequential to break than the other, although, the real world \u201cpenalties\u201d do not necessarily reflect this metaphysical Reality.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgi0hj",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzg84qk"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgcwgz",
                    "author": "y2jeff",
                    "body": "Yet another popular opinion. Maybe just ignore the redpilled bullshit.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgcyt3",
                    "author": "arkstfan",
                    "body": "The addition of no fault divorce laws reduced suicide rates among women by around 20%. Tracking numbers the drop would occur in a state after the change while neighboring states would not experience such a drop until making divorce easier. \n\nThose changes had no impact on suicide rates among men. \n\nDomestic violence rates also declined as states liberalized divorce. \n\nWhile women do initiate the majority of divorces, I\u2019d say more like three out of five than 80%. In my time in family law it was common in uncontested divorces for the husband to separate or move out (often to the company of his next spouse) and simply give his wife money and expect her to do all the hassle of getting an attorney and filling out paperwork and getting their pre-agreed property and custody settlement approved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgdrpf",
                    "author": "Aim-So-Near",
                    "body": "Shut up",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgfkum",
                    "author": "anooblol",
                    "body": "Just to give you a big reason why. \n\nDivorce paperwork is required for custodial arrangements, and the location where the child is considered to be \u201cliving\u201d, to determine which school they\u2019re going to. And everything else associated with the children. \n\nWomen tend to be in the driver\u2019s seats, with respect to the children\u2019s issues. \n\nSo even if it\u2019s a 50/50 equal decision, both parties want a divorce. The woman is more likely to be thinking about how to deal with \u201cthese sorts of problems\u201d. And \u201cthose sorts of problems\u201d require legal paperwork.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhw2gx",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgfkum"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgft2b",
                    "author": "look_at_the_eyes",
                    "body": "A woman initiation divorce tells me she, quite literally, takes initiative for action. This tells me she probably took a lot of initiative action inside the relationship as well. For example for a more equal divide of tasks, better communication, trying to motivate their partner to be active in the relationship and be emotionally present etc.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhvxfv",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgft2b"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgftdc",
                    "author": "wise_potato23",
                    "body": "I would have to counter it with any country where the divorced women won't take half of the man's shit, or in the relationships where the women are the ones making more, the ratios are flipped, it is expected throughout the world for the man to be the main bread winner, meaning that in divorces, specially in countries where half of the money is split, women always come on top, with more rights to custody, and end up holding a bigger bag than when they started (ofcourse in most cases and not all), specially when this thing has become more and more socially accepted that women would do this.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzggxkj",
                    "author": "bigedcactushead",
                    "body": "How do you explain the fact lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay men!",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzghr8o",
                    "author": "SchmeckleHoarder",
                    "body": "Look at woman who won the lottery vs a man. The numbers are fucking crazy for divorce, too crazy to just be a \"coincidence.\u201d",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzghsam",
                    "author": "ReplyOk6720",
                    "body": "What is the saying, all happy families are alike, but each unhappy family is different. I think filing the paperwork means, one gender files the paperwork more than the other. Doesn't mean anything more than that.\u00a0 It doesn't say why. Husband had been cheating on me for years. Running me down verbally to other friends whilw telling me that they didn't like me, and so isolating me. I still loved him. I initially didn't want to even consider divorce. But my friends and therapist encouraged me to file for separation, bc fears he was going to financially destroy me. While he wasnt interested in fixing things, he actually did not want to be divorced. Don't ask me why. I filed citing irreconcilable differences because honestly I just wanted to get through it with the minimum of distress.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhvq4b",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzghsam"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgigqb",
                    "author": "CranberryBauce",
                    "body": "What's funny is that there was a time not long ago when women couldn't initiate divorces, so too many women stayed with abusive, imbalanced, unhealthy men. They don't have to do that anymore. Women initiate 80% of divorces because a lot of men suck.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgu5vj",
                    "author": "88NORMAL_J",
                    "body": "So why would lesbians divorce at twice the rate of gay people?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgigqb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgjm77",
                    "author": "itsforwork",
                    "body": "No. It does mean they are the ones giving up first",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgllfv",
                    "author": "AzLibDem",
                    "body": "[Hoe\\_Math covered this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDhde8MSwBA&t=320s)",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgn7q1",
                    "author": "jackamackat",
                    "body": "Your position is not unreasonable but that's a very high percentage. Extremely high. The simplest explanation which requires the least mental gymnastics and rationalization is that women are not as interested in maintaining marriage.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgnhlo",
                    "author": "KGmagic52",
                    "body": "Women initiate 80% of divorces and still looking for men to take the blame. Women are just allergic to accountability.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgpg4o",
                    "author": "residential_logic",
                    "body": "Yes, it is as the law encourages easy, divorce, and women who are the the majority of the filers because of no-fault divorce, nobody is at fault. The women tend to get everything they want.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgpxvn",
                    "author": "Sometimesmaybegay",
                    "body": "I can honestly say after watching the older men around me in my life I completely understand why it\u2019s so high. My dad, his friends, my uncles treated their wives like dogshit. They didn\u2019t leave but I would\u2019ve never blamed them if they did. Completely changed my worldview and now I tend to side with women over men even as a dude.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh4ny1",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgpxvn"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgqks0",
                    "author": "Pale_Kitsune",
                    "body": "I mean, if someone wants to divorce, there's likely a reason, and that reason often stems from the partner.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgrl68",
                    "author": "Responsible_Fig8657",
                    "body": "Have you considered that my ex wife is fucking whore?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgsedp",
                    "author": "JohnnySpoons82",
                    "body": "All I can say is, in my experience, the person who files for divorce is the one who got fed up with the other ones\u2019 *BULLSHIT*\nSource: trust me bro my ex is a bitch",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh42j9",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgsedp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgul4x",
                    "author": "NotYourGa1Friday",
                    "body": "I initiated my divorce after escaping abuse. He never would have divorced, he was happy to have me stay under his thumb forever. \n\nSo yeah, I initiated the divorce \ud83d\ude02",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh3w4g",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgul4x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgv0n8",
                    "author": "couldntyoujust",
                    "body": "Marriage is meant to be a \"for life\" commitment to the other person. And many of these men are being divorced by their wives, not because he's abusive, or had an affair, or anything like that. They're being divorced because the wife is just \"meh, I'm not happy here anymore, my husband means well but he's depressed, stressed out, etc and so I'm bored.\" \n\nNow, I get why that can hurt and stress a woman out so much, but the solution is to work on the marriage, and be honest about feelings, and commit that regardless our feelings, we made a commitment for life, and we're going to work through this together no matter how long it takes. \n\nI think the worst part of all of this is that when a woman divorces her husband like this, she has already spent the last six months, year, several years, secretly grieving the loss of the relationship and letting it go. Meanwhile she still smiles when she sees you, she still kisses you, she may even - like my ex wife - make out with you and have passionate sex with you... and all the while she's grieving the loss of you and the loss of your relationship like you died and she is a widow. Until she's finally reached \"acceptance\" that you are not her husband anymore and she will not be married to you anymore and then when she finally tells you after she's already cut you off emotionally inside herself, only then does she cut you off emotionally from her and force you into the grieving process. Suddenly you go from \"we have our problems but we still love each other\" to \"she left me! WTF!?!?\" \n\nI'm divorced myself. My wife left because she felt like I wasn't a \"partner\" in our marriage and parenting anymore. And there's some truth to that. The reason? I'm struggling with ADHD, Depression, and we lived with my folks (I still do) because we couldn't get ahead enough to buy a house or even afford an apartment and move out. The prices have gotten that ridiculous. \n\nMy parents meanwhile, have their own ideas about what's right and wrong for us to do with regards to parenting and all that. And my mom especially henpecked me every opportunity she got about what I was doing wrong as a parent in just normal interactions with my son; often in front of her. Believe me, I tried to oppose her, and tell her that what she was doing was inappropriate. She was letting us live there, so I was automatically in the wrong. And worse, I'm terrible with verbal self defense and thinking on my feet. \n\nI would always think later about what she had said and how she had won and realized that it was because my brain falls apart when it's afraid and in those moments, it's terrified because on the one hand, I need her to respect me as her grandson's father, and on the other, she has her finger on the button of whether we stay or end up out on the street. So when I might have remembered a point that would have shut her up, I'm not even aware of it in the moment, it only comes to me later when I calm down how she's actually in the wrong and gaslighting me and how she's being a massive hypocrite.\n\nAnd worse than that, my dad is not unwilling to get physically violent with me, though he's only ever spanked or pushed me during my childhood and adolescence. He also had this thing where he goes drill Sargent and lays into me with demoralizing emotional abuse while physically backing me into a corner. It's demoralizing. He will back her up 100% in the moment even if she's terribly in the wrong from any neutral observer's perspective. God forbid I tell her she's out of line or set boundaries with her. They don't respect me, and they don't care about how their treatment of me makes me feel or hurts me. Mom and dad know best! Mom has been trying to be better lately, but it's not enough.\n\nSo I retreated to my room to stay away from them and especially her. I still do. I would let my wife handle the parenting because they for whatever reason respected her. Maybe because she wasn't their flesh and blood? I tried to change and make it a point to be out there with them, but it was still hard and I still had a lot of coping to do. Eventually my wife decided not to back me up anymore, and then later she told me that she didn't love me anymore and wanted a divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgv2jj",
                    "author": "couldntyoujust",
                    "body": "Part 2:\n\nMorally, it was utterly the wrong move on her part. Our son now has to shuttle between two households and I'm not sure if his subconscious picks up on it, but all the shuttling is like he doesn't have a singular \"home\", where he can look and say \"I'm home\". And in all that he's at so much greater risk of all sorts of bad outcomes, even though I'm still in his life and even have him functionally a majority of the time (though we try to make it 50/50; we have an informal custody agreement between ourselves). \n\nShe made a promise to me on our wedding day that we would stick together no matter what, even when one of us was struggling. It really really hurts. She left because her husband was depressed ... probably is depressed, and not able to cope with his overbearing mother, and strong-arming but disengaged and disapproving father. \n\nIt's devastating. You feel like a piece of you was cut off. You're terrified of how far she'll take it with the courts and how much more suffering she'll inflict on you above and beyond the dissolution of a more than a decade long relationship that was intimate in every way possible. You end up an involuntary celibate overnight (not ideologically necessarily, I'm not ideologically one, but in terms of you no longer have a sex partner, and emotionally it will be very difficult to bring yourself to even look for one when you're trying to save your marriage and afterwards when you're grieving for yourself the loss of your marriage). \n\nYou are scared to lose your child, you're scared to lose your wife, you're scared for the financial pain that may be coming that will further weigh you down the rest of your life because of her decision to leave, instead of keeping her vow, and how much harder that's going to make an already very very difficult life where you were already living in poverty. I got lucky in a sense that she just dissolved the marriage and surrendered our storage unit that had a ton of my stuff and a lot of our stuff in it to be auctioned off. Never-mind that I paid for the unit (and we only had it because my parents insisted we keep nothing of ours in their basement that absolutely had the room for at least some of it).\n\nDivorce is so high, that it beggars belief that all these dudes being left were divorced because they're in some way deficient such that she was justified. Not even close. I know that's an \"argument from incredulity\" but you have to be really hateful of men as a sex to think that it's even possible. Men just aren't that bad as a whole. This is why no-fault divorce has been an utter disaster. It needs to stop. We're chewing men up and spitting them out. It's gotta stop. And women need to start taking the bull by the horns instead of leaving their husbands. Yes, it's legal, but no, it's a horrifically destructive and evil act to divorce your man just because he isn't meeting your expectations.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzgv0n8"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgvbn3",
                    "author": "coming2grips",
                    "body": "Without assigning blame to either partner or gender involved, the party initiating the legal act of divorce has little to no relation to the party responsible for wrong doing. This is even more so in the modern western world where the prevailing standard is for 'no fault' grounds. \n\nOne thing the stat you misquote does say is that women have less reason (or believe they have less reason) to try and maintain the marriage. \n\nThis is the unintended (?) consequence of the long campaign of education that women don't need to be in bad relationships. Anything defined as bad has become grounds to end the relationship regardless of the reality of the act that has been defined as bad.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgz2in",
                    "author": "Greensparow",
                    "body": "Well to be pedantic it depends on what you determine as a  relationship fail. \n\nIf initiating divorce is where the relationship failed then yeah it is mostly women as per your statistics that caused it by initiating.\n\nBut that's really just the simple answer cause it's measurable and very black and white. If you want to dig deeper then you need to know what led to each person filing for divorce, determine who is at fault, or what percentage for each and then make judgment calls regarding blame and truthfulness.\n\nUntil you do that you are pretty much going off emotion and assumptions. So you can say you don't actually know or go by who filed.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzgz5p0",
                    "author": "Honore_SG",
                    "body": "due to cultural and social pressure, at least in my country, women tend to be the ones to initiate the talks about wanting to have a marriage and having a wedding once they have a somewhat longer relationship, they are competitive in that sense of not being the ones on their friend group being last or left out, so its not much about if it is time to get married or are they prepared for that type of long lasting compromise its more about status, since divorced women aren't looked down it doesn't come as a downside to them in all contrary the law rewards them with a pension and the living household even id they have no child, now from the last points I've given you, since they arent doing it out of \"love\" or because they want a live partner they jump to it and once they are in the marriage and realize it wasn't what they actually wanted but already had the big party and ceremony with their friends and important family members now they lose interest, start to have discussions, and well they back out of it since marriage isn't easy and worth the time, most men from my country do not want to marry nor are they interest on marriage since a man that isn't married is just a man nothing more nothing less you have no social pressure nor looked down for being single and they wont gain something on return or finalized said marriage is say that women that initiate divorce are in the majority at fault since they just jump to it without really wanting it at least in my country of course.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh1suc",
                    "author": "Commercial_Place9807",
                    "body": "All a lot of men are perfectly happy to just stay separated and will never get off their ass and start the divorce process. My SIL\u2019s ex cheated on her and then left but then dragged his feet on the actual divorce, leaving all of it up to her.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhvh3h",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh1suc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh27dl",
                    "author": "Hesitantparrot223",
                    "body": "You\u2019re an idiot. Change my mind lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh5jxv",
                    "author": "RYNNYMAYNE",
                    "body": "I think it just shows that woman have higher standards in general and modern women are taking less bs, good for them",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhmiwp",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh5jxv"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh70d4",
                    "author": "aurenigma",
                    "body": "If 80% of divorce is initiated by the woman, then by definition 80% of divorces are marriages being ended/failing because the woman is deciding it to be so.\n\nThere might be many underlying causes, but at the end of the day, those women chose to end the marriage rather than work to fix those causes.\n\nThat's not to say they're wrong to do so, but it is what it is; the marriage failed because they gave up on it. And again, they very well may be right to have given up on it, but you're picking at hairs with the terminology because speaking the literal truth sounds bad to you.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh8cmt",
                    "author": "Calm-Appointment2080",
                    "body": "60% of divorces have porn as a major factor in why the marriage is ending. \n\nIt not only changes the shape of the brain, but also shrinks it. \nPorn use has a whole host of issues like causing erectile dysfunction to it being as addicting as crack. \n\nAlso men who view porn are 300 time's more likely to cheat. \n\nSo the real question is, why are men ruining their marriages and families for porn?",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhlt8w",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh8cmt"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh9gq1",
                    "author": "TomKikkert",
                    "body": "It is an innate animal instinct and has nothing to do with feminism or anything like that.\n\nBRIFFAULT'S LAW: The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.\n\nBoys, if you want to keep your wife, just keep on bringing her shiny colored stones.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhlmif",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh9gq1"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh9oc0",
                    "author": "luvCinnamonrolls30",
                    "body": "Definitely look into whether the studies cite the reasons for divorce. I don't remember which one I read, but one study stated that \"lack of commitment\" was one reason, but that's was an umbrella term that covered infidelity, substance abuse, domestic violence etc. Those are extremely serious reasons for seeking divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhlfwg",
                    "author": "nekro_mantis",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzh9oc0"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzh9qtv",
                    "author": "432olim",
                    "body": "Women have higher levels of neuroticism than men and so are more likely to perceive situations negatively. Plus women have an easier time getting sex than men. Men are more willing to just stick around and accept the status quo.\n\nThe divorce rate doesn\u2019t say much about who\u2019s at fault, more so about the differences in average temperament of the sexes.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzha1i5",
                    "author": "TechnicianLegal1120",
                    "body": "Women are 100% responsible for divorce in Lesbian relationships.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhad7x",
                    "author": "Sakkyoku-Sha",
                    "body": "I don't know how true that stat is, but if we assume it to be true then the following is true. \n\nAssuming same sex marriages cancel out, then of every 100 divorces, 80 are initiated by women and 20 by men. This would mean that for every 1 divorce initiated by a man there are 4 divorces initiated by women. That is women would be 400% more likely to initiate a divorce than a man. If these are population level statistics, we are talking about potentially tens of millions of divorces here. A sample of potentially tens of millions. \n\nThere are 100% some factors that impact this number, sure men might just be more likely to ignore the paper work, relationship dynamics might be in general less advantageous to women, etc... However I think it's incredibly unlikely that any of these more reasonable explanations are going to add up to the 400% difference between the sexes. \n\nAt the end of the day such a massive difference at such a large scale is likely to indicate that women are in general more likely to become dissatisfied with their marriage then men, and are more likely to want to move to end those relationships than men.\n\nThis again is not to say anything about whether or not that is good or bad, or whether or not women are justified in ending these relationships. But it is to say that the reason these relationships end is officiated more by women than men. That is just what that statistic means.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhal3g",
                    "author": "mahaitre",
                    "body": "Anyway the divorce rate is the biggest of all in Lesbain couples.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhc0iq",
                    "author": "Gwave72",
                    "body": "Women initiate it more often because they are usually the ones getting spousal support payments and can live with someone else care free. If a guy leaves he\u2019s broke living in his parents basement.",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhm2k6",
                    "author": "MysticFox05",
                    "body": "Initiating divorce is a terrible crime to commit. I would say that barring cheating, separation is a much better alternative.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhp1i3",
                    "author": "Longjumping_Quail_40",
                    "body": "These are just views without data support. And data admits different interpretations. Just don\u2019t have view and collect data if you really want to understand social issues.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhsgse",
                    "author": "GenocideAllRedditors",
                    "body": "\"Man bad, woman perfect\" reddit moment",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhskrv",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Where did I say that. I said it could be some both neither at fault etc",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzhsgse"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzht6j6",
                    "author": "OMenoMale",
                    "body": "\n\n\n\nIt doesn't matter. They make up their own statistics and ignore anything else. They parrot each other word for word.\u00a0You can say the sky is blue and they'll pretend you said it's red and then they'll call you stupid for saying it's red. DARVO.\u00a0\n\n\nRedpill men blame women for anything and everything and don't even bother having an actual conversation. I have yet to engage one without the conversation turning into a constant barage of insults\u00a0 especially once they know I'm a woman.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhtibu",
                    "author": "Rennan-The-Mick",
                    "body": "Correct",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhu01m",
                    "author": "Commissar-Dan",
                    "body": "Women have more support socially for divorce is probably most of it, most guts aren't exactly easy to talk to about these issues meaning they can feel more trapped. \n\nIn terms of cheating men are slightly more likely to forgive cheating and 55% of divorce is initiated by cheating, but it isn't 80%.\n\nIt's also ridiculous to lay divorce as the fault of an entire gender their are a multitude of factors some just and some unjust.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhwoju",
                    "author": "ExhibitionistBrit",
                    "body": "-\u201cMarriages don\u2019t break up on account of infidelity, it\u2019s just a symptom that something else is wrong with the relationship,\u201d\n\n*When Harry met Sally.*\n\nIt might be a line from a rom com but it\u2019s very true. Just like divorce isn\u2019t the cause of relationships failing, nor is necessarily the affair. Emotional or otherwise.\n\nThe main cause of relationships breaking up is laziness and poor communication in my experience.\n\nPeople start marriages with a commitment to eachother. Lots of words are shared about how they will live their life moving forwards and strive to be the best version of themselves for their partner. So very few actually commit to those words, instead rendering them hollow.\n\nThat\u2019s what then causes the other symptoms. Bitterness, snarkiness, infidelity. Someone essentially lied to get as far as they did in the relationship then tested on their laurels and the other party resents that. \n\nIt\u2019s not the some total of the problem, the second most common reason in my experience that marriages break up is abuse. I\u2019ve seen that abuse drive people to infidelity too. Because the abused is afraid to ask for divorce until they feel like they have a protector. So they stay in a relationship that is failing, due to a trust that was already broken by their partner.\n\nPoint being that divorce numbers are almost meaningless to the cause of a relationship ending. You always have to go back to the root and sometimes it\u2019s impossible to know for anyone but the two in the relationship so judgement should absolutely be withheld.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzhzrkz",
                    "author": "macone235",
                    "body": "Well first of all, I want to distinguish between cause and causal fairness, and which one you are specifically assigning to your point. If I go to a store, and I'm stabbed, then I'm responsible for being stabbed because I went to the store. However, most people would not consider that justified. \n\nUltimately, a relationship is two people's expectations and effort coming together. It does not matter what the expectations are - they can be as high and absurd as can be - it is still ultimately men's job to meet those expectations, or else they're responsible for their relationship situation (or lack thereof). However, it is a two way-street. Just like a man is responsible for being chosen or not, a woman is effectively the one making the selection. \n\nFor example, if you are 5-foot and single. Then, there are two conditions being met. 1. Women aren't attracted to the trait, therefore you are single 2. You possess the trait, therefore you are single. If either of these things are untrue, then you are no longer single in a void. So without any morality involved, you would be correct. If your wife woke up one day and said, \"you need to be 8 foot tall by tonight or we're getting a divorce\", and you failed to do so, then in a sense you would still be at fault. There is no greater weight in this equation though. It is simply a matter of two conditional true and false statements.\n\nNow, I assume that because you are using the phrase \"greater than\" that you are alluding to justification rather than simplistic conditionality. Theoretically, you could still be correct though. Simply saying \"women initiate 80% of divorces means they're at fault\" is not logical in isolation, because it lacks information. In this state, you could make the argument that those divorces are justified.\n\nHowever in doing so, you are assuming that men are essentially inferior to be in a relationship with and provide less to the relationship. The issue with this is that it is very easily verifiably untrue when you do bring information into the equation that is typically provided when statements like this are made. While women do provide more in some ways (like cleaning the household), it is overwhelmingly men doing the courting to convince women to mate in our species. This supports the fact that women are objectively more selective. (and I would say most would agree have at least become more selective over the decades) \n\nSo of course, that means men have to meet higher standards, and women are more likely to have a foot out the door as a result. What's even more telling is the fact that gay men have significantly lower divorce rates than lesbian women, which is basically proof that women are more difficult to be in a relationship with (and this is despite studies also showing that women have lower standards for other women).\n\nLet's look at it from a gendered expectation. Why are men essentially seen as unattractive? Typically because they're feminine acting or looking in some way, which is what in essence? *Weakness*. What are women's gendered expectations? Well, women don't really have strict gendered-expectations to be a certain way, but it obviously does skew somewhat feminine. For men though, there is definitely no room for interpretation - you are expected to be masculine., which is what in a sense? Strength, and strength is obviously something that is harder to pursue than weakness. You could argue, \"well, it's 2024 and men are expected to do more traditionally feminine things that are seen as easier like cleaning the house\". Sure, but do they do so at the expense of their masculine expectations? No. They are still primarily expected to be masculine first and foremost while also easing the burden of the feminine gender role to become essentially - even easier. As a result, that makes the masculine role harder, and thus, men have to be even stronger. \n\nThe thing about masculinity is that there is not even a lot of adjustability You can't just go shave your legs, get a boob job, and slap on some make up. Everything has to be earned, and everything that can't be earned is a roll of a dice. Not only that, but a man is only as good as the man next to him. The reality is that most men are not deemed desirable by women. This very fact means that a man has to overcompensate and will still only manage to be settled for, and that is not justified. That is not fair, and this precisely where you're wrong in your argument. Women **are** the reason for why a majority of relationships fail, and that will always occur when they have the leverage because of hypergamy. No matter how good men become - the best men will always be better; and that is precisely why we have a situation in our society where a man will lead, protect, provide, court, romanticize, and even make sure a woman isn't taking care of his household chores in return - and not only will she not even show gratitude, but she'll get upset if you even expect it. So unless you believe men deserve an even worse life than they already have, then no, they are not responsible.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi2c26",
                    "author": "TunaWiggler",
                    "body": "Women probably initiate more first because they're most likely to have more to gain. Alimony. Property. The kids. Etc.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi3jck",
                    "author": "Grakch",
                    "body": "I think you\u2019re overlooking the fact that women are more inclined to have algorithmic content focused on empowerment and not needing a man and then that is reinforced within their social circles as an enforcement loop which leads to then wanting to just break away from a relationship rather than work on it. men are more likely to get no relationship related algorithmic content, or get content for therapy, or get redpill content. As a result we see more women constantly striving for something better from each relationship, or wanting something different than their partner does and eventually leaving based on it. a lot of what is happening now is entirely due to the content people receive on their devices or if they don\u2019t use it then their friends might and they are influenced there. \n\n\nIf an individual is using the internet for interpersonal advice it\u2019s going to generate more content based on the advice you are asking and self reinforce the original point. I don\u2019t believe this allows for the individual to fully assess their options and it inhibits them from reviewing alternatives because everything is saying do the original thing you had searched the longest. The world is really discounting the effects of algorithmic profiling. \n\nThis is independent on good or bad actions from the partner more it is that the original act elicits such a emotional response that it is the one that most effort is going be used on and then the individual is going to see data reinforcing that original idea. L",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi6ke0",
                    "author": "Bunnysliders",
                    "body": "Women benefit from divorce, of course they'd initiate once the time is a right",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi6s6w",
                    "author": "Redditesgey",
                    "body": "Lesbians divorce the most. Women are the problem. Women can't stand each other.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi78ln",
                    "author": "pridejoker",
                    "body": "There's always at least one person in a bad relationship who thinks everything's totally fine. That's what makes toxic relationships so soul sucking: when only one person's doing all of the work.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzi8ccq",
                    "author": "Vobat",
                    "body": "There was something I read about how the pill effects women hormones and when they come off it to have a child the hormones change again and women can become off-put with their partners, it could be something as simply as the way their partner smells. Something like 60-70% of women are on the pill I wonder if this might be the reason why divorce rates have increased?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kziahq6",
                    "author": "babieswithrabies63",
                    "body": "Lesbians have the highest divorce rate. Then cis couples, then gay men with the lowest. The score is posted.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzias8i",
                    "author": "MrBrandopolis",
                    "body": "What's the point of marriage anymore\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzid2rt",
                    "author": "BrisbaneDoOver",
                    "body": "What are the stats in gay male relationships and lesbian relationships?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzidmn7",
                    "author": "Due_Dirt_2841",
                    "body": "I think this is just another situation of women being given the brunt of responsibility for \"boys being boys\". Women are told to hide away insecurity and not be a problem when men have friendships with women that get a little too close (and to be clear, I think men and women can be platonic friends, but there are usually signs if more is there), but then if a man cheats, women are often still held responsible because they shouldn't have left their man without supervision with a pretty woman... like he's a child being left with candy and not a full adult person.\n\nThere are so many social constructs in place that defer all responsibility onto women, it's exhausting and frankly is a big reason why I imagine a lot of women are more frequently choosing to stay single these days--men just aren't held accountable, and we are always the scapegoat. But every statistic I've seen states men are more likely to cheat than women are, and they're likely to do it during emotional and/or physically taxing times like pregnancy or cancer. I personally wouldn't (and haven't) stayed in relationships with men who left me high and dry when I needed them most, and I wouldn't expect other women to do anything differently. If that means a higher divorce rate, then who am I to question it?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzii3g2",
                    "author": "Suitable-Cycle4335",
                    "body": "I think you misunderstood what their point is. Most of the time I heard about this topic it wasn't about assigning blame but about realizing the tough spot men could be at. Whether it's the man's fault, the woman's, both or none doesn't change much in terms of what you'll have to go through post-divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzijl4b",
                    "author": "Prophayne_",
                    "body": "It makes sense to me that the gender with everything to gain in a divorce is the one most inclined to start them. \n\n\nIf I start one, I lose a third of assets that existed before she did, a third of whatever I make for however long the state says for the future, no time with the kids but majority of their expenses. \n\nShe would get to gain all of those things. \n\nI can see the difference in reluctance.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzimbgf",
                    "author": "TomKikkert",
                    "body": "Love the downvotes! Argue with me because by downvoting you prove me right",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjb7i9",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "I didn't down vote you..",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "kzimbgf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzinn8r",
                    "author": "CordCarillo",
                    "body": "As soon as you used the term \"red-pilled,\" I knew you were gonna be full of shit.\n\nIt's not as black and white as simple fault.  There are issues on both sides that lead to a divorce.  \n\nThe 80% just shows who is quicker to jump ship at the first sign of trouble and never take responsibility for their contribution toward the break up.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzinorw",
                    "author": "inspire-change",
                    "body": "i always took this take as who *filed* for divorce, not who made the marriage fail.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzioer5",
                    "author": "StacyStatement",
                    "body": "Women divorce males for being shit men. No one abandons their marriage for fun. Divorce is the man's fault.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzir7pm",
                    "author": "Jebbouy",
                    "body": "God forbid you take your vows seriously and work through a bad time. God forbid we hold women accountable for the words they vow! Domestic abuse and cheating are good reasons to divorce. Everything else y\u2019all conjure up is retarded. \u201cUnsatisfactory marriage\u201d fuck off",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkz450",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzir7pm"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzitzvj",
                    "author": "FactChecker25",
                    "body": ">Often I hear people who are redpilled s\n\nIt\u2019s a really bold assumption to think that anyone that has this belief is \u201credpilled\u201d. It just immediately screams, \u201cI can\u2019t see past my own politics!\u201d\n\n>Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once.\n\nNo. I don\u2019t know anyone that would be ok if their partner cheated on them.\n\n>So I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc\n\nI agree that we need more information to come to make an accurate judgment.\n\nOne large factor is the fact that women nearly always make out in a divorce. It\u2019s rare that a woman has to see the guy taking the kids or paying the ex husband alimony.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kziwvvi",
                    "author": "Pak1stanMan",
                    "body": "I\u2019ve never heard that lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzj2eou",
                    "author": "anonymous-rebel",
                    "body": "Unpopular opinion: a divorce or a break up isn\u2019t a failure, it\u2019s an acknowledgement that two people aren\u2019t compatible.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjagag",
                    "author": "somerandomguyanon",
                    "body": "One reason guys don\u2019t initiate divorce is that divorce disproportionately destroys their life.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjauby",
                    "author": "Midokun",
                    "body": "The divorce rates among lesbian are higher than gays",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzji8k5",
                    "author": "Th3DarkSh1n0bi1",
                    "body": "Actually in most cases it is their fault based on the vows themselves.. Till death do us part.. And most divorce isnt caused by the man breaking vows.. Its financial issues and irreconcilable differences.\n\nBut that being said its just biology mixed with modern society. Females are always more likely to leave males when things are sunshine and rainbows and she gets bored or the guy gets stagnant etc.  Not to mention many of the ones getting married in their 30s and 40s are settling for a safe option when they used to date mostly toxic people. That seriously can effect their future relationship stability.\n\nBoth parties play a part in the extremely high divorce rate but currently the primary burden doesnt fall on men. With modern women having equal if not more rights than men and so much freedom they can easily leave. They are even rewarded for it with resources..\n\nWhere as back in the day it wasnt as beneficial for them to leave their men. When you remove the \"need\" for men then its no surprise most would divorce within the standard 3 to 5 year period.. After the butterflies have left.\n\nSecular people shouldnt be getting married in the first place. There is literally no logical reason for it.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjlopm",
                    "author": "Individual-Car1161",
                    "body": "Most divorces cite \u201cirreconcilable differences\u201d which is on both parties. The next most cited fall under similar archetypes",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjm2c8",
                    "author": "I-mean-maybe",
                    "body": "I think the rate or of lesbian vs gay male divorce should be enough to show women are the ones leaving relationships at 2x the rate.\n\nYou can take straight and same sex relationships , isolate for sex and effectively get the same rates of departure.\n\nPeople just want to point the finger at men, because its easy to scape goat men. \n\nData doesn\u2019t give a fuck about what you want the narrative to be. People can obviously shape data to match biases but given all the data you will find truth. \n\nIf we had a dataset with a document per divorce that contained, sex , initiator, reasons, investigations of sorts etc. it would be very trivial to put everything in a document store and produce aggregates like rates of violence, infidelity, etc just using a combination of nlp entity extract and fuzzy match logic . Could even ingest into a graph data basis and link persons entities to find the people who ruin the most marriages by name given enough data. I suppose you could write a crawler since divorces are public but what a pain.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjmujo",
                    "author": "amishdoinks11",
                    "body": "Obviously not saying it\u2019s women\u2019s fault but lesbian couples also file for divorce at a higher rate than gay (men) couples. Just tells me women won\u2019t settle for a partner who doesn\u2019t meet a certain standard which is okay",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjnefs",
                    "author": "IllPen8707",
                    "body": "No but it does indicate that divorce tends to favour the woman. A man in a toxic marriage is less likely to hit the panic button because he knows he'll get reamed in court, and that's what needs to change.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzjz04s",
                    "author": "Icy-Statistician6831",
                    "body": "No, but If those stactics are true, it's probably more often than not because woman doesn't feel attracted anymore. It's not bad or women's \"fault\", but it just shows that they initiate more breakups, lol. It's easier for women to find someone else.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzk8xua",
                    "author": "Tetsu_Kai",
                    "body": "It's a case by case thing. You cant make blanket statements about entire groups of people, it will always be false. If you want to know why marriages are failing, you'd have to ask the people who were in those marriages.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkagoz",
                    "author": "Comprehensive_Ear586",
                    "body": "Are straight people okay?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkc9fc",
                    "author": "BetterHedgehog2608",
                    "body": "I think you have a misunderstanding of marriage. Marriage is a vow for life. That may be your confusion if you think marriage is just until your partner does something you don\u2019t like.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkf9zo",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Can you show where it must be so. Whether in law or not. The law had deemed marriage to be between man and woman. I see no reason why it can't ever expand",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzkc9fc"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkcf2a",
                    "author": "InterestingSyrup7139",
                    "body": "Misogynists will always find a way to find women for everything. Most women file because their husbands are the problem.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzkhhvr",
                    "author": "Steel_mill_hands",
                    "body": "This is the precursor to the \"Despite initiating almost 70% of domestic violence incidents, women are not the reason relationship gets physical\" post.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl31nu",
                    "author": "Ok_Job_4555",
                    "body": "google marriage failures in lesbian relationships",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl3f60",
                    "author": "psiloryan",
                    "body": "Why does this matter at all?",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl6zlq",
                    "author": "DryEditor7792",
                    "body": "Think of 10 random examples of males in your life dealing with hardship. Now think of the last ten times you remember females dealing with hardship. Which ones do you remember helping other people during those times.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzl973m",
                    "author": "Sheetmusicman94",
                    "body": "I don't see a difference between women initiating divorces and women not liking \"unsatisfactory\" marriages. They are the same thing.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzlba5s",
                    "author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
                    "body": "The vast majority of divorces are for \"irreconcilable differences\" not infidelity. If you are ending a marriage because it doesn't meet your requirements instead of trying to work on that marriage and make it work? Your fault. You own it.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzllf2j",
                    "author": "Unionisundefeated",
                    "body": "Yep, of course it is the logical, normally much more stable person in the relationship.  Sure",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzln0eu",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzllf2j"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzloxcb",
                    "author": "fire_alarmist",
                    "body": "Its not about who does what, its about who has what to lose. In a divorce, a man stands to lose half of everything he has worked for over a lifetime just by virtue of a woman saying \"meh im not feeling it anymore\". There are ads, social influences , friends and everyone always urging women to not get married or divorce. Women will by and large always be favored for custody, divorce laws in general are absolutely archaic and discriminate against men. So localities are even known for throwing out prenups. The main purpose of them these days is to saddle as much financial responsibility onto the man as legally possible so that the state doesnt have to pick up the tab taking care of the woman/child. Add to that, a man doesnt really see marriage as a ticket to a better life like women do. So there is just so much more to lose for a man, not much to gain by trying to go out and find a replacement so they just stick it out and work harder to keep their current arrangement as long as they can. Meanwhile, there is nothing to lose for a woman, the world keeps telling her she deserves better and husband isnt good enough, the allure of a better, richer husband is always out there. Obviously when its so easy for them, they are much more likely to initiate divorce.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzlpeye",
                    "author": "Anxious-Count-5799",
                    "body": "I think most people understand that the point is that women are less likely to try and fix something that is broken when they are so empowered to just leave, take a bunch of money, and find someone else to act as a placeholder.  I exaggerate a bit to point out that our culture currently encourages this.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzlvbxz",
                    "author": "DropAnchor4Columbus",
                    "body": "Logically speaking, this is a statement that makes sense.  Given the statistical imbalance, it's unlikely.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzm519v",
                    "author": "MR_DIG",
                    "body": "I know the numbers are closer to 50/50 than 80/20, but you should look at other things that cause divorce other than cheating.\n\nI think the general perception of women initiating divorce stems from relationships where the woman is UNHAPPY, and the man is CONTENT. But due to lack of communication this does not change until she divorces him.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzmbbfz",
                    "author": "adlubmaliki",
                    "body": "I agree. The main reason relationships fail is because monogamy is unnatural",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzmcrzr",
                    "author": "More-Ad4663",
                    "body": "Can you show a resource to me proving that men are more likely to be ok with cheating? I've honestly never heard of that, and in fact find it hard to believe.\n\nWe already know a reason why women could be more likely to initiate divorce. Statistical research shows that women have more confidence that they'll find someone soon compared to men. While it's likely that it's more difficult for most men to replace a lost partner, at least that's what they seem to believe.\n\nThis however doesn't necessarily mean that women are the problem. Ofc, they could be in some individual cases, but not necessarily always or most of the time. More data is required to make a decision regarding this issue. Otherwise, we'd be speculating based on bias.\n\nAlso, divorce isn't necessarily the death of a relationship. It's sometimes the funeral of a long dead relationship. Some right wing people seem to be erroneously thinking that all is well and good for a relationship if people are still together. That's why some of them keep mentioning how divorce rates were so low 3-5 generations ago. What they don't seem to understand however is that being together doesn't necessarily equate to being happy. A marriage isn't necessarily a successful relationship just because it's going on.",
                    "date": "2024-04-14",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzmus12",
                    "author": "Nincompoop6969",
                    "body": "Show me the source where these statistics come from and then the sources they got it from. Bias is often coated in things like this but people take it as factual. Even the words give reason to be skeptical like \"initiating\"\n\n\nA lot of news is staged and politicians often buy out the media or companies that need to advertise.\u00a0\n\n\nThere is also other factors and statistics around this too. Like what percentage of marriages are with what genders, what is the length of the marriage difference of these genders, what percentage of woman were what age that initiated these divorces, how was the information gathered, etc",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzn27yv",
                    "author": "forpetlja",
                    "body": "Depends how we perceive marriage. I see it as relict from past made by patriarchal society to keep women under leash. Thus, by women gaining rights and self awareness we kinda do make relationships fail, just by not accepting crap treatment anymore. That aside, reason why marriagies exist and endured for decads war women behaving silent and obedient. Move it out of picture you get what we see today - high divorce rates. Which is actually making me happy. Nobody should suffer abuse.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzn9lo4",
                    "author": "borninsmithers",
                    "body": "Oh of course not , they wouldn\u2019t take the blame anyways!!",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kznan7j",
                    "author": "Dennis_the_nazbol",
                    "body": "One datapoint to look at is the higher divorce (and domestic abuse) rate in lesbian relationships. Im not encouraging to draw any anti-gay or anti-woman conclusion from this. Maby women are less toleran of imperfections in a relationship, maby men are more careful when selectig a long term partner, maby there is some other variable im not claiming to know the answer.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kznbiq3",
                    "author": "surfingkoala035",
                    "body": "For better or worse, the chances of a woman being able to survive outside the union of marriage are much higher than they were in the past.  Is it the only factor in initiating divorce?  Of course not.  But not being destroyed financially is a big factor.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzo0s5b",
                    "author": "Godiva_pervblinderxx",
                    "body": "The non abusive/ non cheating reasons women initiate divorce are: because of differences in parenting, because men aren't pulling thier weight domestically, and because of issues with their husband's family (and let's throw male porn addiction/female sexual dissatisfaction in there as well)",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzogn63",
                    "author": "Shuteye_491",
                    "body": "[here ya go](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples)",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzov1b3",
                    "author": "joyous-at-the-end",
                    "body": "thanks to all\u00a0the mothers who put their kids first and got the fuck out of there.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzp166z",
                    "author": "VCthaGoAT",
                    "body": "Lesbians have higher divorce rates than gay men in same sex relationships in every developed nation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples#:~:text=As%20a%20result%2C%20the%20corrected,same%20as%20opposite%2Dsex%20couples.\n\nThere was a study done on Tinder and women only Swipe Right around 5% of the time. In comparison, men Swipe Right about 53% of the time. \n\nWomen have much higher expectations and are significantly more picky in choosing a partner. Statistically speaking most of them will not end up with the person they \u201cthought\u201d they deserved.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzp5jhn",
                    "author": "AllAmericanProject",
                    "body": "Its actually a pillar in the redpill community to take statistics and evo-science and present them in a way that supports their narrative often either misunderstanding, misrepresenting or down right lying about said studies",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzp70p7",
                    "author": "Background-Heat740",
                    "body": "The issue is not that the majority of divorces are initiated by women. The heart of the issue is men seeing videos and posts all over the internet of women leaving supposedly good men for very petty reasons. When that kind of thing is so visible, men question how many of those divorces women initiate are for bad reasons.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzpmh3c",
                    "author": "Beseriousforonceno",
                    "body": "Too late, new generations are already aware.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "kzp70p7"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzpbvay",
                    "author": "XXXblackrabbit",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t feel bad for divorced men that get taken to the cleaners at all in 2024. Imagine willingly letting the government in your love life \ud83d\ude02",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzpm19b",
                    "author": "Beseriousforonceno",
                    "body": "Exactly. The cat is out of the bag.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzpbvay"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzplvof",
                    "author": "Beseriousforonceno",
                    "body": "No worries, no one is getting married these days.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzptaz5",
                    "author": "cosmic_uterus",
                    "body": "Men are less likely to file for divorce because they benefit so much from being married even in little ways. Who\u2019s going to do the domestic labor or schedule their doctors appointments?",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq0cn4",
                    "author": "Loud-Condition9827",
                    "body": "Well more lesbians get divorced then gay men. Idk",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq1usg",
                    "author": "Impressive_Culture_5",
                    "body": "Yeah, I\u2019d argue the one initiating the divorce is not the problem",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq2ice",
                    "author": "mancer187",
                    "body": "That statistic is basically meaningless without considering the context of those cases.  \n\n\nHowever...  Lesbian couples are more likely to divorce than hetero couples, and gay men don't come anywhere close.  Take from that what you will.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzq6il3",
                    "author": "Fantastic_Camera_467",
                    "body": "Men try to stay together for the family. Women are more likely to split in general.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzr4d8o",
                    "author": "debunkedyourmom",
                    "body": "it doesn't matter why divorces happen. The value proposition for the spouse that makes more money is in the shit.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzraoiv",
                    "author": "russr",
                    "body": "No, it's definitely the women...\n\n\"Between 2004 and 2009, the average annual divorce rate for all homosexual marriages was almost 2% (the total rate of divorce over those five years was 11%) Also between 2004 and 2009, lesbian divorce rates were nearly double of those of gay men.\"",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzrjqov",
                    "author": "Madman_Micha",
                    "body": "I mean divorce court, heavily, favored the woman. So they don\u2019t have much to lose. Honestly see the reason to get married.",
                    "date": "2024-04-15",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzsabp9",
                    "author": "PeanutsNCorn",
                    "body": "You lost me at women...",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzslgge",
                    "author": "Additional_Slice7606",
                    "body": "I appreciate this. \n\nWhen I've been in a relationship that's struggling it's usually always been my partner that's worked to make things better. \n\nIf anything, they tried to work on it and I was never taught to do so. \n\nSo, IME, I'd say that a woman leaving likely means she's the type to advocate for her needs and may very well have tried, without success, to fix things.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzsndqc",
                    "author": "West-Rate9357",
                    "body": "Yeah, look up the lesbian divorce rate, I'll wait.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzsqa1m",
                    "author": "Glad-Commercial1748",
                    "body": "Also perhaps more likely to become unsatisfied in the marriage? \ud83e\udd37\u200d\u2642\ufe0f\n\nGrasping at straws here ;) lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzt29ct",
                    "author": "manicdijondreamgirl",
                    "body": "I just think it\u2019s that men are way more unlikely to actually go and file paperwork lol",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzt9xkc",
                    "author": "FeetPicHero",
                    "body": "Feminism has taught women that men are subhuman and that there is no value in maintaining relationships with them. Men are just an avenue for money via child support/alimony. They want to victimize while being the victim. Equality between genders means men pay them money for some imaginary injustice (think made up things like micro aggressions and pink tax). Feminist think it's an injustice that men find certain traits attractive. They even made their own pejorative, male gaze, to shame men who have a sexuality.  For women, the relationships aren't failing. They are doing what they want from them, money, the ability to hurt others, and a victim status.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzt9zsx",
                    "author": "alohamoira210",
                    "body": "Seems like a lot of people don't know how to interpret statistics",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzuoucf",
                    "author": "DelightfulandDarling",
                    "body": "The person who files is not necessarily the person who initiates the divorce.\n\nMy ex walked out and left me to do all the work (just as he always had). I filed, changed the locks, put the kids in therapy etc because he was busy being a useless drunk.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzvjf0l",
                    "author": "ay-foo",
                    "body": "What does it mean?",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzvngce",
                    "author": "Distinct_Face_5796",
                    "body": "I believe this generation is more hedonistic and selfish than someone born in the 40s as an average. For both genders.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzw4re4",
                    "author": "Yoloswaggins89",
                    "body": "Yes yea it\u2019s always the man\u2019s fault",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzw9fwv",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Who said its the mansnfault?",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "kzw4re4"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzw8ybx",
                    "author": "sterlinghday",
                    "body": "I think the cause is rather nuanced my self. No one demographic is to blame, just humans being humans.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzwg7zy",
                    "author": "mslaffs",
                    "body": "I thought it was obvious",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzwkm3d",
                    "author": "whoinvitedthesepeopl",
                    "body": "Women file for divorce because they are done.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzwnd6w",
                    "author": "BackgroundAd9784",
                    "body": "Look man, divorce rates are around 60% for hetero marriage, like 20% for gay marriage and around 80% for lesbian marriage.  Yes women are the problem.  Want a great marriage? Be a man! Go gay!",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzxbp3d",
                    "author": "DownTownDave915",
                    "body": "Most divorces are not due to cheating, but financial reasons.\n\nSo it can be women are constantly marrying immature financially illiterate  morons (seen it a lot) or they are not sticking around when times get hard financially,\n\nEither way it does make them look kinda bad.",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzxdrl1",
                    "author": "Yabrosif13",
                    "body": "No, but it does suggest they are typically the main beneficiaries in a divorce",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzxqbf6",
                    "author": "Master-Efficiency261",
                    "body": "Women being most likely to initiate divorce proceedings just shows that women are the ones 'managing' the relationship status; the odds that a man are happy to live un-divorced but separate because he doesn't want to go through the financial hardship of an actual divorce seems quite high, compared to a woman who likely wants to have the marriage ended so that she can pursue other options without having to chase her ex down for a full and final divorce - which is, ironically, a recurrent theme of several 90's movies like Twister.\n\nI frankly don't know why anyone would extrapolate the people who are most likely to start paperwork to mean that those people are 'the cause' of the relationsihp failing. I'd simply assume they're the more paperwork, ducks in a row oriented type - and since it's statistically women, and it's kind of socially normal for us to joke about how women are dragging men into marriage etc. it kinda makes obvious sense that it's just that women are expected to manage the status of the relationship they have, whereas men can just kinda be in whatever and float through various situationships etc. and it won't matter because no one will judge them. .",
                    "date": "2024-04-16",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzyi2wt",
                    "author": "tulipfraise",
                    "body": "As a woman all these stats tell me are that men aren\u2019t worthy or quality partners in the first place and I shouldn\u2019t even try. There\u2019s absolutely no reason women are spending thousands of dollars, upending their families, changing their entire financial and living situation and divorcing from a long time partner for shits and giggles",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzze5d2",
                    "author": "Applepitou3",
                    "body": "There are waaaaaayy to many factors to think about with this number.",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "kzzjp01",
                    "author": "Necessary_Row_8356",
                    "body": "Nah the women are probably 100% responsible..\ud83d\ude0e",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0150go",
                    "author": "TheSpiritofFkngCrazy",
                    "body": "Well, let's take men out of the equation. Lesbian marriages. Then take women out of the equation. Gay marriages. The numbers don't lie fam.",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l01gksd",
                    "author": "Intelligent_Loan_540",
                    "body": "This stat just reminds me to never get married honestly",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l02tg6h",
                    "author": "Complex-Key-8704",
                    "body": "Def not. They initiate 80% of marriage so it only follows they'd want to correct their mistake",
                    "date": "2024-04-17",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l057050",
                    "author": "Latin_Stallion7777",
                    "body": "P.S.:  Men are statistically somewhat more likely to cheat, and actually far less likely to forgive cheating, whether it's a one-time thing or an ongoing thing.  And I agree that infidelity is a justifiable basis for ending a marriage.  But that doesn't change the fact that women file more often.  Arguably, that still represents them giving up on the marriage more than the other person, even if the husband is screwing up.  (And if one partner is not providing adequate sex/affection, which is common, especially from wives, infidelity is a foreseeable result, with the withholding party therefore partly to blame.)\n\nClearly any marriage that a person leaves is unsatisfactory to that person.  But people also assume a responsibility to work on a marriage when they get married, and that includes clearly conveying one's unhappiness, the need for specific changes, and the consequences for not changing.  So to me the relevant question is whether the person leaving (usually the woman, apparently) is conveying that prior to leaving.   That may be an open question, but many men are clearly claiming they're completely/generally blindsided when the women files.  And it's unlikely that's always BS, even if it may be sometimes.",
                    "date": "2024-04-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l05lqh9",
                    "author": "Solicidal",
                    "body": "As a general rule, anybody claiming to be \u201credpilled\u201d likes to be believe absolute fucking nonsense based on what makes them feel good. That whole \u201cBeta, Alpha, Sigma\u201d era was basically repackaged star signs for insecure blokes.",
                    "date": "2024-04-18",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l110x4x",
                    "author": "EmbarrassedMix4182",
                    "body": "Women initiating divorce more often doesn't solely indicate they're the main reason for marital dissatisfaction. Initiating divorce can reflect women's empowerment to leave unsatisfactory relationships. Reasons for divorce are multifaceted and can't be simplified to gender. Both men and women can be at fault for various issues like infidelity or incompatible life goals. Statistics on cheating show both genders are capable. Moreover, some divorces occur due to mutual agreement or irreconcilable differences, without blame on either side. Using divorce initiation rates to blame women overlooks complex relationship dynamics and individual circumstances, painting an unfair picture of women as the sole cause.",
                    "date": "2024-04-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3gala7",
                    "author": "Suspicious_Ferret108",
                    "body": "Women initiating most divorces doesn't solely reflect their fault in relationships failing. It indicates they're more likely to seek dissolution in unsatisfactory marriages. Reasons for divorce vary; it's not inherently about fault. Men and women both contribute to marital issues. Infidelity, for instance, doesn't automatically assign blame to one gender. Divorce often stems from compatibility issues, evolving priorities, or irreconcilable differences. Focus on understanding the complexities of relationship dynamics rather than assigning blame based on divorce initiation rates. Recognize individual circumstances and mutual responsibilities in relationship breakdowns.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c35brq",
                    "author": "WaterDemonPhoenix",
                    "body": "Often I hear people who are redpilled saying that women are the problem because they initiate divorces. It doesnt make sense. \n\nAll it says is women are more likely to not stay in unsatisfactory marriages.\n\nLet's take cheating. Maybe men are more likely to be OK if a woman cheated once. But let's say a man cheated and a woman divorced him. That doesn't mean the woman made the marriage fail. If she cheated and the man left the woman made the marriage fail too. \n\nand sometimes its neither side being \"at fault\". Like let's say one spouse wants x another wants y\n\nSo I think the one way to change my view is to show the reason why these divorces are happening. Are men the cheaters? Are women the cheaters? Etc ",
                    "date": "2024-04-13",
                    "score": 1109,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Women initiating 80% of divorce does not mean they were majority of reason relationships fail ",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c35brq/cmv_women_initiating_80_of_divorce_does_not_mean/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l5z3wws",
                    "author": "vaksninus",
                    "body": "With stats like these, there really is very little point in gettkng marriee. In the first place, you don't need papers to love someone.",
                    "date": "2024-05-27",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c35brq"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1c9giyd",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                "date": "2024-04-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "l0lllhy",
                "author": "lametown_poopypants",
                "body": "I seem to think a lot of the problem with politicians is that it has become a job. When this happens the priority becomes saving the job rather than doing the most good. It\u2019s why politicians go along with their party more than not. It\u2019s why polarization is so high. If the politician wasn\u2019t actively working for their next role, title, or election we could progress faster. \n\nIf you added significant monetary compensation to this mix, you\u2019d have more people wanting to be in the seat for the money and fighting harder to keep it for themselves. That doesn\u2019t help the people.",
                "date": "2024-04-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
            },
            {
                "id": "l0nadyh",
                "author": "fantasy53",
                "body": "\u0394 I agree that higher salary would definitely attract people who are only interested in money for themselves, and they might do whatever it takes to keep it.",
                "date": "2024-04-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "l0lllhy"
            },
            {
                "id": "l0naoaw",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/lametown_poopypants ([4\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/lametown_poopypants)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-04-21",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "l0nadyh"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l4jgo",
                    "author": "Callec254",
                    "body": "No, we don't want people going into politics just for the money.\n\n(Well, more than they already do now, I mean.)",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": -3,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l58tq",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "If you want expertise, you have to pay for it.\nThe world revolves around money, I think it\u2019s naive to ignore this.\nOtherwise you get people who are not as knowledgeable making policy decisions who can easily be bribed by third parties",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l0l4jgo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l5d3f",
                    "author": "Dry_Bumblebee1111",
                    "body": "I think we should incentivise but highest paid is a bit far.\n\n\nPersonally I think that their pay should be in line with the national minimum wage, which incentivises fairer pay for everyone.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l5xg5",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I don\u2019t see why not, train drivers get paid significantly more in the UK than the average citizen, and that\u2019s because they have much more responsibility.\nIf a train crashes, hundreds of people could potentially die.\nBut a Politician who drafts policy which could affect millions of people shouldn\u2019t get that same consideration?",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l0l5d3f"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l63oa",
                    "author": "dnkyfluffer5",
                    "body": "When has the United States ever been a democracy? The founding fathers always believed in and wrote about it in the constitution convention debates that the minority of the opulent must be protected against the majority and that is how we have been since. We are a spectator sport every 4 years. The power structure that be does everything in its power to make sure our votes count the least. votes aren\u2019t suppose to count when it helps the little guy out. We only give money to like Lockheed Martin and Boeing and other corporations that are well established. Or a billionaire the. They get large government tax dollars that won\u2019t get paid back and that\u2019s not capitalism either but that far another time but yeah we have never been a capitalist country. It\u2019s all a faced to make ourselves feel better. \n\nThink about it the Supreme Court intentionally left the 100 k or however many voted didn\u2019t get counted in the 2000 election thanks to the Supreme Court which is part of the evaluation system that was set up from the beginning to help the rich and powerful and to make it very difficult to make any change for\nThe little guy.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l6wun",
                    "author": "npchunter",
                    "body": "You're in luck.  Tenured politicians like Nancy Pelosi make millions, perhaps hundreds of millions.  Somehow.  It hasn't proved sufficient to attract talent, at least not talent in the things that matter to citizens.\n\nVoters cannot tell genuine competence at governing from marketing skill that projects the illusion of competence.  Inevitably they optimize toward the latter.  How paying office-holders more produces different decisions at the ballot box is not clear.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0l8bce",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "I think the illusion of competence is always going to be a problem in any system, but There are ways to work around it  like encouraging accountability and honesty and transparency from elected representatives. \nBut I think Pay will help to attract top talent, though in some cases, it perhaps doesn\u2019t work as well as it should.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l0l6wun"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lgdbo",
                    "author": "Shredding_Airguitar",
                    "body": "They'd be bought by lobbyists and others just as much as today btw.  The issue with politicians is how much power they weld and that attracts megalomaniacs and kletomaniacs, authoritarians and others.  Limiting government is really the best way to actually limit the effects of government corruption.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 7,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lpmxa",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "No matter how small the government is, eventually, someone somewhere will be making policy decisions, and I believe that ensuring that person is sufficiently compensated will ensure that those decisions are made in favour of the electorate rather than corporations.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l0lgdbo"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lhpcl",
                    "author": "twoflower-insured",
                    "body": "> needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future. \n\nthe staffers can do all that.\n\nthe politician just needs to be a good speaker with a pretty face who can explain things to the public and trusts the right staffers who can do all the good thinking.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lk5hf",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "Not all democracies have staffers for  politicians",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l0lhpcl"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lltlr",
                    "author": "strange-humor",
                    "body": "They are in the US. Unfortunately, they are just paid by their real masters. That is hidden campaign bribes. Or contracts and jobs for them once they leave public service, or many other ways that companies in the US legally compensate politicians for screwing over their constituents to serve the needs of the corporations.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lp6j2",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": "But that\u2019s my point, if the job of a politician paid much more, then they would not be as inclined to betray their values and ethics for C to the major oil company afterwards.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "l0lltlr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0lqb49",
                    "author": "Narf234",
                    "body": "I\u2019d like it if every dollar paid to a politician was able to be tracked in and out.\n\n Full transparency for a public servant. I want to know who\u2019s paying them and who they are paying.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0m1225",
                    "author": "sawdeanz",
                    "body": "Can you describe some people or roles that people hold now, that might become politicians if the pay was higher?\n\nBecause that\u2019s the whole basis of your view. But it\u2019s not obvious to me who these smart people are and what they are doing instead. Scientists and academic professors for example rarely make more than the congressional salary. \n\nAnd this is also undermined by the fact that these people could run, they just don\u2019t or rarely win. Ultimately, I think you just have a very idealistic view of how politics work. In reality, politicians are rarely chosen for their academic expertise, and this one change is not going to change that. \n\nI actually would support a salary raise\u2026but probably not for the reasons you do. Someone like alexandria ocasio-cortez is a good reason why. By all accounts she is very well educated and a good representative to those people that voted for her, but she has talked about how she could barely afford rent in DC. But she also doesn\u2019t really fit your criteria, because she wasn\u2019t in a high paying field prior\u2026she was doing various normal jobs. So raising the salary would remove the types of barriers that prevent others like her from running. But she wasn\u2019t attracted to the role for money\u2026she was passionate about the policies \n\nOn the other hand, there are plenty of millionaires in Congress too. They are neither incentivized nor dissuaded by the salary. Rather they are there because of the power and opportunities it creates. And despite being filthy rich, they are still very corrupt. There is no reason to believe that raising the salary would dissuade these types from running or prevent corruption. \n\nWhat you need to do is ban insider trading and have stricter rules about corruption and conflicts of interest. I think the issue with the high salary idea is that while you are removing some barriers, you are also attracting those that value money and wealth over genuine passion and care. So let\u2019s say you raise the wage very high and manage to attract a top talent who would otherwise be working their way up the corporate ladder. This person gets in office and gets offered campaign money from a lobbyist. Do you think they are going to turn it down just because they are intelligent? Or are they going to accept it because they are an ambitious person motivated by money? Well\u2026it\u2019s probably the second one since we already established that this is why they took the politician job in the first place. \n\nSo yes, you do need a higher salary so that money isn\u2019t a barrier for normal people to become politicians, but you don\u2019t want it so high that it attracts too many of the purely financially motivated people. Currently, we have the worst of both worlds because the low salary keeps out normal people but the unethical perks of the job (attract the financially ambitious people.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0mniuo",
                    "author": "digbyforever",
                    "body": "Right now the entry level for a lawyer in D.C. is $180,000.  Salary for a Congressman is $174,000.  So you're saying to run for office, for a lot of people --- lawyers, for example --- you'd have to accept a salary when you're probably in your 40s or 50s with a family, that's less than you were making right out of law school.\n\nIf you said to someone, I've got a great job for you, but you have to take a 70% pay cut, how would that *not* dissuade a huge number of people?",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "l0m1225"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0mahxn",
                    "author": "Lynx_aye9",
                    "body": "Most politicians make more than the average American, yet still are vulnerable to lobbying and some to corruption. Look at the current Supreme Court. Extremely well paid lifetime appointments, and yet they accept gifts and allow others to influence them. They shouldn't even be associated with tribal politics and yet that is what we currently have.\n\nThe problem lies primarily with lobbying, not the pay scale of politicians. Being well paid does not mean someone is immune to monetary influence or gifts.",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l0q8vhd",
                    "author": "EmbarrassedMix4182",
                    "body": "While higher salaries might attract talent, excessive pay can also incentivize people primarily interested in personal gain. True passion and dedication to public service should be the driving force behind a politician's career, not the paycheck. A modest salary ensures that individuals enter politics for the right reasons, prioritizing the public good over personal wealth. Furthermore, relying solely on high salaries to prevent corruption overlooks systemic reforms and transparency measures. A strong ethical framework, public accountability, and strict regulations are more effective in combating corruption than salary alone.",
                    "date": "2024-04-22",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1c9giyd",
                    "author": "fantasy53",
                    "body": " When I think about what skills politician should have in a perfect world, I would say that politician, needs to be someone who is genuinely passionate about their country and wants to improve it while being able to think outside of the box, with innovative solutions to long-standing societal problems. Someone who has knowledge in a variety of fields, but is unafraid to consult experts and key stakeholders When making decisions to get a full picture of the impact These decisions will have on the country in the future.\nA person who listens to voters and is able to assimilate Their feedback into the decisions they make.\nIt\u2019s not a unique skill set, but I don\u2019t think many people fit this criteria, and those who  do will often gravitate to much higher paying fields.\nI think that in Order to have the best people in positions of power in our society, they need to be well compensated for that role since this is the only way we can get true expertise.\nIt also prevents politicians from being easily bought by lobbyists and private individuals, and Limits, the impacts that foreign states can have on policy.\nI also believe that if the salaries for politicians were higher, the sleaze and  general corruption we see on a daily basis would decrease because voters would be much less apathetic and hold their representatives to a higher standard. insertion point after standard., at the 1,349th position",
                    "date": "2024-04-21",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: in a democracy, politician should be some of the highest paid people",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1c9giyd/cmv_in_a_democracy_politician_should_be_some_of/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l10dm1k",
                    "author": "Euphoric-Form3771",
                    "body": "You really think politicians only make what they do on paper?\n\nThese freaks launder money daily. You sound like you live under a rock.",
                    "date": "2024-04-24",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1c9giyd"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1coixeb",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                "date": "2024-05-10",
                "score": 102,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "l3edkd0",
                "author": "sdric",
                "body": "Some games are about power fantasies, others are meant to challenge you. In a game without level scaling you will ultimately only fight a small set of enemies in a max level area, which significantly decreases gameplay variety, additionally the game might get dull if you 1-shot everything. Level scaling allows devs to keep earlier content relevant, keep an increased variety of interesting content and keep the player physically (reflexes) and mentally engaged.\n\nPlayer progression should always be focused on giving the player more ways to engage content. Level scaling has never been the issue, bad progression if player characters is. If leveling up does nothing but increasing your numbers the game will get stale quickly, albeit a \"gear threadmill\" can be a way to keep \"fulltime players\" who consume content unreasonably quickly occupied, especially in live service games.",
                "date": "2024-05-10",
                "score": 58,
                "parent_id": "1coixeb"
            },
            {
                "id": "l3ee6lk",
                "author": "Z7-852",
                "body": ">Level scaling allows devs to keep earlier content relevant\n\n!delta\n\nWhile I understand need to keep content relevant I think it's cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. It's relevant because the new context.\n\nBut this leads to another critism. If you end up just killing same enemies at high level, maybe the game should have ended already. This level scaling just creates artificial padding to the runtime.",
                "date": "2024-05-10",
                "score": 31,
                "parent_id": "l3edkd0"
            },
            {
                "id": "l3eeatx",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/sdric ([1\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/sdric)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-05-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "l3ee6lk"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eclzx",
                    "author": "Alexandur",
                    "body": "When done right, level scaling doesn't 100% offset all progression you make as you've described. I can't actually think of any game where it does work that way. Usually it's something more like if you do 10% more damage, enemies become 5% stronger. Just a sort of rubber band effect to keep things from getting too trivial too quickly.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 21,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3ecr1n",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "So why not just make that level up +5% instead of +10%?\n\nThen keep all the enemies identical throughout the game. Now you can actually keep easier enemies in starter zone and when you return to them you feel powerful.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l3eclzx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eddop",
                    "author": "Galious",
                    "body": "Wouldn\u2019t you say it\u2019s a tool that can be used sometimes well, sometimes not?\n\nFor example I remind the first time I played Final Fantasy 7 (yes I\u2019m old) and I played it a lot and then I finally arrive at final battle with epic music against Sephiroth and\u2026 I destroyed him without breaking a sweat and it felt totally lackluster. Had there been some level scaling system and I would have enjoyed it way better.\n\nNow of course if you loot the Godslayer sword of epicness with 9999dps and you go back to the starting area of the game and \u00ab\u00a0small rabbit\u00a0\u00bb has now one million HP and drops the Godslayer sword of epicness +1 , then it becomes silly",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 29,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3edlr7",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": ">\u00a0I remind the first time I played Final Fantasy 7 (yes I\u2019m old)\n\nI assume you did same thing we all did when we were kids and had too much time on our hand. I did same with FF3. You grinded and looked all the secrets. Your work was rewarded of you being powerful.\n\n>\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0small rabbit\u00a0\u00bb has now one million HP and drops the Godslayer sword of epicness +1\n\nI feel it's more often this than the other.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "l3eddop"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eg8uo",
                    "author": "10vernothin",
                    "body": "I can attest to games that don't level-scale, and what happens is that maps become obsolete. In an infinite progression game, that means ever-expanding amount of resource and bloat as more people hit level cap. A level-scaling factor can be a way to basically \"replay\" the content and save on bloat. Often, the loot and exp is increased. A lot of \"dungeon\"-style games have level-scaling so that assets can be replayed.\n\nFor close-ended games, level scaling also becomes a way to \"balance\" the game. You can't \"farm\" your way through the easy maps and get that power spike through the rest of the game. Whether you stay in the map or you go to the next one, you'll be more or less forced to go through the same power progression. Sure, one can achieve that with fancy exponential level exp math and many games do that instead, but I get it. The science of figuring the cost vs benefit of a person deciding staying there grinding out levels vs just going to the next map is sometimes a lot to ask. \n\nOn the other hand, level-scaling can also enable more explorer-minded players to explore the map more free, as content isn't necessarily gated by how much time you spend in the game or the dreaded \"you are too low leveled to be in this zone\". You'll often see this happen more in more modern open-world games as game companies realize that people get bored of repetitive gameplay much faster than before, and when they do, they use their time to instead go out to explore new areas. Level-scaling, in a sense, is something that creates passive excitement for an adventures, the monsters always challenging but not overwhelming, while the mild incentives of spending MTX, in-game money to upgrade, or stopping to grind a little is always at the edge of their mind. Good game design will be able to toe that line of making it just enough so it's always stimulating, whether it's the challenge of weaving through a hard enemy, or finding a weapon that temporarily gives you the edge every time you upgrade.\n\nBut also, not a lot of games nowadays actually uses level-scale as their only way to progress (unless it's a mobile game). They either do a tiered system where the game auto-level-scales but you can visit your old difficulties or just have low-level maps become obsolete, including not gain any exp or loot. Because yeah, what you're describing is an inflation game and those usually hold the attention of people for about 3 weeks (I work in mobile gaming I've seen the stats). Turns out big numbers go up infinitely do have some appeal, and you can at least get some sweet ad revenue before the jig is up. \n\nIn the end, level-scaling is a tool, and people like different things, so game companies turn to their toolkits to pander to different demographics. Personally, I think grinding levels and playing video games in itself is a Sisyphean task, and I've come to a realization that it's what brings you joy that matters. You and a LOT of others despise inflation games, and I get it. But to some, the daily dopamine of finding new loot and constantly upgrading them is the way to go until they get bored, then, they get under a new rock to push. I can only imagine it get them through the day.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eh2mo",
                    "author": "Forsaken-House8685",
                    "body": "The problem without level scaling is that at some point you get so powerful that it gets boring.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3ehywf",
                    "author": "Sayakai",
                    "body": "Limited level scaling mitigates having a lot of optional side contents. Some people just go for the main story and the map should be accessible to them without forcing them to grind. Others like to do all the side content, those people will get considerably stronger, but the main story still needs to be engaging for them. So a map that keeps all enemies withing a few levels of the player - over if they didn't do any side content, under if they did all of it - prevents the game from being unreasonably hard or boringly easy.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eje6m",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "So why not tie power progression to the main story line only?",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "l3ehywf"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eppet",
                    "author": "wibbly-water",
                    "body": "> I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n\n\n> I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\n\nI don't know which games do it like this but from my experience its more like\n\n\n- Find a weapon that does 10% more damage, enemies get 5% more health and do 5% more damage.\n\n\n- Level up and increase crit chance, enemies get 5% more health and 5% more damage.\n\n\nThe point is that level scaling is rigid and can be out maneuvered. You still gain the benefits while also having enemies get a little stronger to provide a challenge - rather than just countering every upgrade you make.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3eq6ur",
                    "author": "Temporary-Earth4939",
                    "body": "Level scaling is possibly slightly less bad than arbitrary and immersion-breaking numbers bloat. I agree with all of your criticism of level scaling but I'd argue it tends to result in a more real feeling world than RPGs like final fantasy where \"I grow stronger and can kill earlier things more easily\" really translates to \"I can kill the yellow version of this enemy in one hit but now the green version with a different name is challenging and the purple version one shots me.\"\n\n\nWhich is to say, level scaling exists because numbers bloat from DnD and FF is expected from many gamers, and is just *so awful* that some additional system was needed to make it feel less absurd in an open world game.\u00a0\n\n\nOf course the right solution is to just kill numbers bloat in the first place, have difficulty increase via larger groups (kill a squad instead of a solo guy) or genuinely bigger / scarier baddies, telegraph more difficult areas in-game via visual or story cues, and make power growth feel roughly realistic (i.e. much more modest / gradual, and based more on capabilities than just outputting bigger numbers). But this is *hard* to design so you don't see it much, especially since some people really just do want to see the numbers get bigger so they can feel cool.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3gg93j",
                    "author": "Major_Pressure3176",
                    "body": "Skyrim is a classic version of scaling by enemy version, with a couple of twists. Sometimes upgraded versions have new abilities, like draugar shouting (disarm and ragdoll affect you at all levels. Also, the player has more space to improve. You will always eventually outscale the enemies.\n\nOne RPG I like that has no-leveling enemies is Horizon: Zero Dawn. Some enemies get a few more armor pieces but that's it. Enemies introduced as bosses become environmental. Aloy improves by gaining new ammo types and skills, not percent damage (outside of a few edge cases).",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "l3eq6ur"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3et0sd",
                    "author": "QuantumVexation",
                    "body": "Everything must be taken in context\n\nYou go over to a Pok\u00e9mon subreddit and they act like level scaling will solve all their problems (it won\u2019t).\n\nBut also some games being super OP would actually be boring too, so level scaling comes in to make sure low level missions are remotely engaging for high level players",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3f1tgp",
                    "author": "LarousseNik",
                    "body": "I think that this scaling is specifically a good design pattern as it incentivises thinking about your build.\n\nUsually it's like that: the enemies become 10% tougher while you, if your build us focused, thought out and efficient, deal 12% more damage on average; if your build is either all over the place or have too many of these greedy \"progression\" perks then you deal 8% more damage as a downside. That's exactly the trade-off you're supposed to think about and analyse whether you'll be able to, say, compensate it by skill or anything and whether it potentially pays off in the long run when you take the last important perk or find the key item. If that wasn't the case, the build itself would become completely irrelevant and there would be no reason not to take as much of these greedy perks as possible to power-level and make the rest of the game trivial.\n\nEven forgetting about the challenge, these \"meaningless numbers\" provide a bigger variety of playstyles. Like, you can argue that if your stat increases are exactly the same as enemies' then you can do away with the leveling system altogether; however, leveling allows you to choose which stats to upgrade and what perks to keep and how to play in general, so even if the challenge is constant throughout your playthrough, the feeling changes as you level.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3f1z8r",
                    "author": "Kuja27",
                    "body": "Level scaling ensures your character never feels powerful until basically the very end of the game (if even then). And that is kinda dog shit imo.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3f3ge8",
                    "author": "Low-Entertainer8609",
                    "body": "Level scaling has dramatically improved my multi-player experience. Diablo 4 and Fallout 76 scale to each player in a group, so that allows me to play with friends who are well above or below my level without one of us curbstomping all the enemies.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3f3t3y",
                    "author": "HaveSexWithCars",
                    "body": "Level scaling is important in games where non-linear progression is allowed/encouraged. As an example of level scaling not being present, take pokemon scarlet/violet. The game actively suggests the player can pursue objectives in the order they please. But those objectives don't scales with the player's progression. So you can walk into a boss that's unbeatable for where in the game you are with no warning, as well as accidentally leave a low level boss for the very end of the game. And since the game doesn't tell you the *actual* order of things, it's pretty easy to have unsatisfying fights.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fbiiw",
                    "author": "Little_BallOfAnxiety",
                    "body": "I think you're misunderstanding how level scaling works in games. While there are several different approaches, npcs are typically scaled based on your level, not your stats. This means that 10% extra damage will still apply because the npc will get 10% more armor for every level rather than every time you are buffed yourself",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fnldw",
                    "author": "Wide_Connection9635",
                    "body": "Like everything, level scaling needs to be done 'correctly.' \n\nJust for example, I wouldn't think it good design that if you find  a weapon that does 10% more damage, that the enemy then gets 10% more armor... because then finding that weapon is basically useless.\n\nHowever, let's say you are level 9. Then you enter a new area where the enemies are level 2. You're just going to walk through that area without any kind of challenge. Hey, maybe that's what you want as you want to feel uber powerful for leveling. But that might not be for everyone. Plus depending on the game, you might not even gain much experience killing level 2 units. So, let's say the game boosts the level 2 units to level 6. You're still more powerful and the section will be easier. But you still have to be somewhat alert and you still get more experience.\n\nTo me, that would be smart use of level scaling.\n\n  \nA lot of this has to do with the specific rules in the game. For example, you worry about coming back to an area that used to challenge you and then being able to just smash everyone. What about games where once you defeat an area, the area is not 'clear' of enemies. I personally prefer that type of game (just a personal preference).",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fnpgm",
                    "author": "gojiguy",
                    "body": "I'd argue RPg mechanics have infested everything now and this is the price.\n\nGames don't need \"loot\" or \"grinding\" or even \"experience points\" but they get shoehorned for a false sense of progress",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fssqr",
                    "author": "Electrical-Farm-8881",
                    "body": "Try playing Final Fantasy VIII",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fur2x",
                    "author": "FiestaDeLosMuerto",
                    "body": "Bethesda does it best but theyre too lazy to come up with new content so midway through their games they run out of strong gear and everyone has the same few weapons",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fvgej",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I would argue Bethesdas implementation is terrible. Worst even.\n\nEven on quick play through lowly raiders/bandits are boasting weapons fit for a king few hours in. There is no game logic behind these choices other than to provide harder enemies once player have become a dragon slaying semi god in a power armor but still dies to level scaled rats.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l3fur2x"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fvq4s",
                    "author": "RangersAreViable",
                    "body": "Are you talking about a Breath of the Wild type world where when you go back to that point, the enemies become stronger, or a Baldur\u2019s Gate type world where the closer you get to completing the story, the stronger the enemies get?",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3fy7s9",
                    "author": "Friar_Corncob",
                    "body": "Borderlands does this very well. Ultimately, if you're build is good and you use the correct damage/aim for weak spots you will outscale the enemies. The game also scales up the loot you're getting and it makes it so you can replay the game with the same character and not just get bored running through trivial enemies through most of the game.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3g7ovc",
                    "author": "An-Okay-Alternative",
                    "body": "Games are usually engaging when they pose some degree of challenge that needs to be met with skill. Level scaling when done well ensures that there\u2019s a consistent level of difficulty so that as you progress and get both better at the game and better gear/stats it doesn\u2019t get to the point where you\u2019re just walking around mindlessly tapping buttons because it\u2019s so easy.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3gjfei",
                    "author": "sawdeanz",
                    "body": ">In worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nDoesn't this go against your point? In a game with various builds, some of them will play differently. You can make the game harder if you want to by optimizing a build that does this or that better. \n\nObviously, a game would be bad if it really was just upping the numbers respectively. You would hope the game also introduces new mechanics, puzzles/challenges, or unique bad-guy powers. You need it to some extent or else the player character just becomes too strong. I remember thinking this when I was playing like Saint's Row IV, you get a bunch of really OP powers and weapons early in the game which basically negates a lot of the core gameplay. Like, once you can fly there is no incentive to steal and drive cars and the wanted system basically becomes a minor annoyance. And some people may like to just get to play with everything right away, but it definitely just serves to make the game less challenging. \n\nI guess the alternative is you make it a quest based game with some quests harder than others. This gives the illusion of choice but it's still essentially the same fundamental concept.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3h7tpi",
                    "author": "Satansleadguitarist",
                    "body": ">Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\nThere's more than one way to design a game and just because it doesn't line up with what you personally like doesn't mean it's bad design. If every game was exactly the same almost everyone would complain that there isn't enough variety in games. \n\nSome games are designed as a power fantasy so you start out weak and slowly get stronger to the point where nothing can stand in your way and some people prefer that sense of becoming stronger and stronger until you're basically a god. Some people prefer games to be designed in a way that they can be constantly challenged all the way through and level scaling is an easy way to make that happen. Sure maybe there are better or more interesting ways to go about it but that doesn't mean level scaling is bad. One approach isn't inherently better than the other, they're just different ways tod design a game and different people are going to have different preferences.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3j0tv5",
                    "author": "ahawk_one",
                    "body": "It\u2019s a mixed bag for me. Sometimes it makes things feel pointless, sometimes it helps things continue to feel relevant. It really just depends on the goals of the developer and the game overall. \n\n\nSomething to consider is that players usually do not scale in a linear fashion. We do for a while, but that changes over time. On the one hand, you get better at the game and so enemies who are \u201cequal\u201d to you are easier to handle. On the other hand, you\u2019ve likely acquired passive effects and active abilities from your leveling and the items you\u2019ve obtained often have passive and active bonuses as well. So even though a formerly low level enemy is \u201cscaled up\u201d they are still weaker on average than they were when you first met them due to your non linear scaling.",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3jak5x",
                    "author": "Sadistmon",
                    "body": "Global leveling scaling is bad, but having certain areas or enemies scale with you is a different story. \n\nFor example the world map in RPGs it is expected you'll traverse this quite frequently and return to areas later in the game, the world map scaling to you might even make sense in game if monsters overall are getting stronger.  But if you go into an actual area the enemies will still be weaker.\n\nAnother example is having a certain type of enemy scale to you, like a rare bonus enemy with unique rewards. Not being able to get the unique rewards at a lower level would suck especially with the rare spawn rate missing your chance because you got the right RNG before you have a real chance to win. Conversely if it was a one hit KO later in the game it simply wouldn't do either, you wouldn't have earned the rewards. Level scaling is really the best option for an enemy like this.",
                    "date": "2024-05-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3jmmng",
                    "author": "Big-Health-2832",
                    "body": "I have always hated level scaling. For example I find it rewarding to go against a boss and lose to them then go grind some side quest, gain levels/skills and come back and beat him. \nWith level scaling, Imagine if you were taking a test in college and the difficulty of the test was related to how much you studied. Whether you studied 10 minutes or 5 hours you are gonna get a 90%. I think people against level scaling are the reason wow classic made a comeback",
                    "date": "2024-05-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3kr35i",
                    "author": "hewasaraverboy",
                    "body": "100% agree w you, I hate level scaling and think it ruins the feeling of progression in games \n\nThough I don\u2019t think most games have scaling based on getting a new weapon , typically it\u2019s based on your level\n\nSo if you get a new weapon while still at the same level, you will feel a power spike until you\u2019ve had that weapon for a few levels\n\nIn a way it shifts the progression to be gear based instead of level based\n\nIf you have gear above your level you will feel stronger and if you have gear below your level you will feel weaker \n\nThe only game I think that does leveling scaling well is Skyrim, because instead of all enemies just being scales to your level, it simply adds to the types of enemies that spawn, and the stronger enemies are actually different\n\nLike if you go into a cave at level one you\u2019ll see some like weak skeletons\n\nIf you go into a cave at level 10 you can see weak skeletons and strong skeletons\n\nIf you go in at level 30 you can see weak skeletons , strong skeletons, and skeleton death lords \n\nSo you still get to experience the progression since you demolish the weaker skeletons who used to feel strong to you, while being challenged by the newer ones which are stronger and look more imposing (better armor, weapons, bigger, etc)",
                    "date": "2024-05-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3l465j",
                    "author": "Life-Mousse-3763",
                    "body": "Definitely agree. Even though it\u2019s a minor thing, going back to earlier levels/stages after achieving power spikes and feeling untouchable is so gratifying. \n\nGoing back and it taking just as many hits to kill enemies and experiencing the same level of danger completely nullifies advancing my character in the first place lol",
                    "date": "2024-05-11",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1coixeb",
                    "author": "Z7-852",
                    "body": "I played a single player looter shooter and realized yet again how terrible level scaling is as an mechanic.\n\n**Level Scaling** is\u00a0where the world (or specific areas) and enemies levels up with you to provide a constant challenge, primarily by upping your foes' stats.\n\nBut this makes no sense.\n\n* I find a weapon that does 10% more damage. Enemies get 10% more armor.\n* I level up and increase my crit change. Enemies get more health.\n\nWhy do I even get level ups or make choices if they are all countered by level scaling? I don't become any stronger. It's just a sisyphean task where numbers go up but nothing actually changes.\n\nIn worst case level scaling even makes certain \"builds\" obsolete. For example I often take +exp and +loot skills first. But if enemies get stronger based on my level it means that game becomes harder because I periodized fast progression instead of stronger build. Enemies now have more health but I don't do more damage.\n\nAlso level scaling breaks the immersion. You start the game in low level area but when you later return there after fighting gods and deamons, suddenly everyone who used to wear leather armors are using divide plate mails. You don't get the power fantasy and feeling strong if everything just scales with you. World will rotate around the player and doesn't feel like its own living thing.\n\nI just hate that games have meaningless numbers that go up while nothing actually matters. Its cathartic pleasure to kill enemies who used to offer you a challenge with easy once you get stronger. That's the whole point of getting stronger.\n\n",
                    "date": "2024-05-10",
                    "score": 102,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: Level scaling is bad video game design",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1coixeb/cmv_level_scaling_is_bad_video_game_design/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l3wkj6q",
                    "author": "Ok-Crazy-6083",
                    "body": "I would only go as far as to say it's lazy game design. But the intent is to keep the difficulty the same while gating you out of certain areas until you've progressed in the game more. Because people only scale up to your current level, they don't scale down to your current level. So you put a bunch of high level monsters in one area, and then players are prevented from going there until they've done a bunch of prerequisites. That's a very lazy way to handle things, but if the intent is to keep the gameplay difficulty the same throughout the entire game, it's an easy way to do that. If you don't level scale, then you will get a world of Warcraft situation, where one max level character can literally depopulate an entire zone without any effort.",
                    "date": "2024-05-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1coixeb"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1dcj3yj",
                "author": "garaile64",
                "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                "date": "2024-06-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "l7y5ovo",
                "author": "Alikont",
                "body": "First of all, nuance is lost on the internet, and a lot of your comments feels like simplification or strawmanning.\n\n> Criminality\n\nWell, nobody says \"abolishing prisons\". What people want is rehabiliation before punishment. In a developed nation you would have very small number of really harsh criminals. And as some countries show, rehabiliation policies reduce the rate of recidivism, which is one of the core metrics of successful prison system. This also protects people from mistakes in court system - even if you get wrongfully convicted, your life isn't ruined.\n\n> Transit\n\nI live in what people call \"poorest country of Europe\" and we have quite extensive public transit system, and I don't remember even seeing anybody doing drugs here for decades. I saw maybe one attempt at robbery. It's also not a problem of public trainsit per se.\n\n> Immigration\n\nDid you ever seen an immigration process? It's such a layers of bullshit on top of layers of bullshit that a person who succesfully completes it is a national hero. The \"tough on immigarion\" is usually just about making this process more convoluted.\n\nWhere it fails is distinction between refugees and economic migration. Both in policis and in public discourse.",
                "date": "2024-06-10",
                "score": 41,
                "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
            },
            {
                "id": "l7y79e5",
                "author": "garaile64",
                "body": "1- Thinking about it, the transit part doesn't work for much of Europe, as the problem is more about funding. Well-funded transit attracts people that are not \"the bottom\". !delta  \n2- I wasn't talking about abolishing prisons, that's only viable in a place that works like a preschool cartoon. I was talking about improvements in education and life conditions being too long-term.",
                "date": "2024-06-10",
                "score": -3,
                "parent_id": "l7y5ovo"
            },
            {
                "id": "l7y7eoc",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Alikont ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Alikont)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-06-10",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "l7y79e5"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y4z7q",
                    "author": "AleristheSeeker",
                    "body": "This feels like you're making a binary choice here...\n\nIt's completely possible to do both - focus on solving crime rates by improving conditions and still cracking down on the remaining cases. The first part is a statistical solution to a large number of cases, clearing up capacities for the second part. There's no need to pick one part and abandon the other.\n\nThe same can be said for pretty much everything you say here. Ideals are pretty much always unachievable - they're something we should strive towards, but to set them as something you need to reach at all costs is unproductive. The same can be said for nearly every ideal - left or right, progressive or conservative, xenophilic or xenophobic.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y5hoz",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "The issue is that everyone supports either one or the other, never both. In case of crime, people will think that not borderline torturing the criminal bastard is unfair to their victims. Also, I am pessimistic about policies that can only be done during the terms of several consecutive presidents or prime-ministers.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": -5,
                    "parent_id": "l7y4z7q"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y5623",
                    "author": "Dyeeguy",
                    "body": "People are not generally scared to take public transport. They just perceive it to be less convenient for one reason or another",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 32,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y65b3",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "For the criminality part, I was thinking more about Brazil than the US. Also, the junkies and perverts are part of the reason people prefer the car. The junkies are more present in lackluster transit, but the perverts are inevitable, especially in more misogynistic cultures.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": -8,
                    "parent_id": "l7y5623"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y57wp",
                    "author": "ProLifePanda",
                    "body": ">I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.\n\nYou define neither of things explicitly in your text. You also don't do a great job detailing how \"ideals of the left\" rely on no \"dangerous people\". \n\nYour edit of \"Well only SOME ideas\" is a cop out. Because I can point to any worldview and claim it relies on idealistic assumptions. For example, the GOP wants to deregulate industry. But this relies on the hope that businesses will act in the consumers best interest without government oversight, which we know they won't.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 10,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y6kz4",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "Dangerous people: criminals, junkies, perverts, immigrants unwilling to let go of certain toxic traditions that aren't as well-seen in their host countries.  \nAlthough the \"ideals of the left\" were actually just criminality, immigration and transit.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l7y57wp"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y63cx",
                    "author": "Yarndhilawd",
                    "body": "This is dumb",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y7g4e",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: \n\n> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).\n\nIf you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l7y63cx"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y7atc",
                    "author": "Dennis_enzo",
                    "body": "'The left' doesn't exist as a unified group, so neither does 'the ideals of the left'. I've voted conservative left my entire life, and their priorities and ideals are not at all the same as progressive left. And even 'progressive left' has no one unified set of ideals.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7y7eah",
                    "author": "elcuervo2666",
                    "body": "El Salvado has some 6 million people and can be completely covered in a day in a car. His policies are popular but not universally popular and he is clearly setting himself up to be president for life. People in developed countries wouldn\u2019t stand for just arresting every person in a poor neighborhood and holding them without charges. It\u2019s not a practical solution. \nCapitalism won\u2019t let rich countries help poor countries because capitalism relies on poverty to generate profits. If you see immigration as a problem there are no solutions that don\u2019t involve militarizing borders. \nTransit: you ideas here are silly. Sometimes in the US homeless people will ride them for long periods of time to sleep. Most people in the US don\u2019t ride them because the schedules and routes suck outside of a couple of cities.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7ya9kl",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I already changed my mind on transit, as the issue is underfunding (or toxic traditions and male entitlement in case of the perverts), but I was thinking of New York, one of the very few US cities with a somewhat functional transit system, when talking about the junkies. But that's underfunding as well. About the homeless, they should be given shelter instead of allowing them to sleep on the train and make the other commuters uncomfortable.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "l7y7eah"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7ygq0t",
                    "author": "EmpiricalAnarchism",
                    "body": "So let\u2019s start by looking at your first point on crime. You disfavorably compare the policies preferred by those you identify on the left to Bukele. Let\u2019s start with a basic question. Why is crime bad? We\u2019ll make it even easier and focus on murder. Why is murder bad?\n\nGenerally we\u2019d argue that murder is bad because it results in innocent people being killed, which we have some degree of moral revulsion over. If we want fewer innocent people to die, we should want lower crime rates, and specifically lower murder rates. Fairly simple logic.\n\nHas El Salvador reduced the lethality inflicted on its denizens under Bukele? The answer, simply put, is no. I don\u2019t have the numbers on hand but I\u2019ve done the math before and it\u2019s pretty clear that Bukele\u2019s policies are resulting in higher overall loss of life than the situation present when he took power, and that Bukele actually reversed a trend that started shortly before he came into office where violence rates were beginning to fall. What Bukele did was essentially legalize and make systematic significant amounts of so-called \u201cvigilante\u201d justice (viz., violence carried out by right wing paramilitaries against left- and liberal-leaning groups under the guise of crime control), artificially reducing the rate of murder by not counting that violence any longer, while increasing overall rates of violence experienced via making that uncounted violence even more common. And it\u2019s true that El Salvador is a particularly violent place, but nothing Bukele has been doing is tangibly improving that, despite what polling carried out at gunpoint by his jackbooted thugs suggest.\n\nNext, we\u2019ll look at immigration. If we put Islamophobia aside, it\u2019s generally true in the US, which takes a much more sensible approach to migration than the European ethnostates, that immigrants are less prone to criminality than the native population. In fact, statistically speaking, immigrants are better than natives in just about every way. Moving from one country to another is a costly act that people do to improve their lives - think of how many millions of Americans and Europeans are unwilling to move a town or two over to accomplish the same and the reasoning becomes even more obvious. Plus if we want to talk about \u201clazy bums that refuse to integrate\u201d we really should start with a conversation about Brexit.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 3,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7yj2rj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "1- To be fair, Salvadorians feel safer when walking on the streets now, and that's all most of them care about, believing the brutality is worth it.  \n2- Both the United States and Europe have \"unauthorized\" immigrants, though. And there are also refugees, who need to leave to avoid death but can often have cultural issues with the host country. Maybe Europe pressures them more to integrate compared to the Americas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l7ygq0t"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l7zqie7",
                    "author": "Grouchy_Actuary9392",
                    "body": "Rich countries are rich because they have poor people who are willing to work. Countries that accept immigrants and refugees are doing it out of political gain not from the goodness of their hearts. They should not be helping poor countries, that doesn't make sense from a self interest point of view.\n\nAnd your point about refugees being lazy, I think that is incorrect. The point of immigrants and refugees is a short term loss for long term gain. It has been historically proven that immigrants become the ideal citizen by making the most money and paying the most taxes.\n\nThe ideals of the left is to fund the culture of crime, social housing, homelessness and welfare. This is the case because the government in power wants to keep getting votes. \n\nIf you are concerned about crime then it's best to leave these countries like the rich are doing. This cycle of immigration and refugees is going to continue because it is a method for the current government party to stay in power.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l80f3f3",
                    "author": "team-tree-syndicate",
                    "body": ">Criminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now.\n\nI don't see why both can't be done at the same time. You can improve wealth inequality and general life conditions and jail conditions while also still putting bad people behind bars. This isn't a scenario where you can only choose one, we can easily do both at the same time here.\n\n>Immigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies\n\nImmigration is a complex topic but the easy solution is to just enforce our laws as normal. It doesn't really matter what traditions an immigrant has, so long as they abide by the laws of their new home then it's not a problem. If they don't then the solution already exists. If you trace the underlying thread to most anti immigration arguments, you'll find most of the time it's the idea of \"cultural purity being at risk of contamination\" that people claim is the problem. It's safe to say that claim is not logical.\n\n>Transit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts\n\nThis isn't really a public transit problem. This is a city failure problem. Public transit is successful in an uncountable amount of cities, and the reason for its failures in US cities has to do with population density. Public transit is only really effective in population dense areas, and due to our cities being purposefully designed to be spread out, the two become antithetical to each other. American cities used to be densely populated with good public transit systems, before it was all torn away in the suburban explosion after the end of WW2.\n\nNone of these policies rely on low crime rates or dangerous people not existing. Nobody thinks that dangerous people don't exist. We can improve crime rates while still dealing with criminals, we can improve immigration laws while still dealing with criminals. Leftist policy is not taking the reigns off the horse so to speak, and letting people do whatever they want, at least that's how I view this as a D.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 4,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dcj3yj",
                    "author": "garaile64",
                    "body": "I will define \"dangerous people\" and \"ideals of the left\" throughout the text.  \nCriminality: the left's solution to high crime rates is improving education and life conditions. That is effective, but it's too long-term and people need to be safe now. As some criminals can be quite cruel, people will support harsher policies, not unlike what Bukele did in El Salvador.  \nImmigration: one of the main reason people, especially in Europe, oppose lax immigration is because some immigrants will keep some \"traditions\" that the host country finds barbaric, like honor killings, homophobia or forcing women to cover their whole bodies. Poland accepts very few immigrants and is safer than some Western European countries that receive a whole medium-sized city worth of immigrants per year, and some of those immigrants are lazy bums that refuse to integrate. The rich countries should help the poorer ones to catch up so citizens of the latter don't need to move to the former to have a good life or safety, but, like with criminality, the citizens of poor countries need safety and money now. Also, rich countries rely on some immigrants because the local people aren't reproducing enough for the economy's liking, so they're stuck with this dilemma.  \nTransit: a reason why public transit is unpopular in some places is because of the presence of people taking drugs, the likelihood of being mugged and the presence of perverts. The mugging was kinda discussed in the \"criminality session\". Dealing with the junkies relies on another long-term policy of dealing with possible economic and psychological problems, but people need to be safe now. Getting rid of the perverts relies on an even longer-term work of educating the population, maybe even wait for human evolution, as every major human culture is full of entitled cumbrains who think all women are objects for their delight.",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: the ideals of the left rely on dangerous people not existing.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dcj3yj/cmv_the_ideals_of_the_left_rely_on_dangerous/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l818bmy",
                    "author": "SadStudy1993",
                    "body": "For one when you say left what do you mean are you talking communist, liberals, democrats who exactly?",
                    "date": "2024-06-10",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dcj3yj"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1dehxoa",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 78,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "l8c17re",
                "author": "Crash927",
                "body": "Are you speaking from a particular jurisdiction?\n\nWhere I\u2019m from, housing and homelessness are primarily the responsibility of provincial government, so I\u2019m not sure I would judge a city\u2019s success on something that they have few mechanisms \u2014 and less funding \u2014 to actually influence.",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
            },
            {
                "id": "l8c91c9",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "**\u0394**\n\nYou're right, so I shouldn't have said \"city\" specifically, I have updated to clarify.",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "l8c17re"
            },
            {
                "id": "l8c99tv",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Crash927 ([8\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Crash927)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 1,
                "parent_id": "l8c91c9"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c0190",
                    "author": "LapazGracie",
                    "body": "Now I often rail against USSR as having an atrocious idiotic economic system. But there were some things they did really well.\n\n1) General education. Mostly because they were very strict disciplinaries and had very high education standards.\n\n2) Dealing with homeless.\n\nThis is what they did. \n\nFirst of all you have to understand that while public transportation was very cheap. You couldn't get on there smelling like shit. You'd get thrown out. And pretty much nobody had a car so public transport was the way to get around. The roads were trash, most people used busses and eletrichkas.\n\nSo say they found a homeless man in Moscow. They would send that guy away in a 100KM radius away from Moscow. Remember public transit is all you got and they won't let you on. So it's not so easy to get back.\n\nIn his new home he would have free food, free housing, free medicine and free clothing. Everything would be taken care of. But all of it would be awful quality. The cheapest shit, old ass equipment. They would also be forced to work. They got paid a little bit but mostly the work was there to keep them busy.\n\nNow either you cleaned your act up. Or you stayed in that shithole forever. It was obviously well equipped to deal with alcoholism. Drug addiction was less common but they had \"treatment\" for that (mostly cold turkey). \n\nAnyway this was a very effective system. It was brutal enough to where people didn't really want to become homeless at all costs. Or at least they stayed the fuck away from major metro areas if they did. And on top of that the regular citizens almost never had to interact with them.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c1ag1",
                    "author": "pigeon888",
                    "body": "Sounds like prison",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8c0190"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c0zmw",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nI don't think anyone thinks homelessness is a single-cause problem at any level. \n\nHowever, you're making huge assumptions here. Mainly that an aggregate increase in rent would cause an increase in homelessness AND that that increase would thus somehow be unrelated to drug use. \n\nThose are just random assumptions. An increase in average rent can have a ton of causes. Widespread drug use can be one of those, as people may default, may cause issues in properties, etc. \n\nAlso those may be loosely- to un-related. Prices can rise and thus people who spend more on drugs, or lose their jobs due to drug use, or lose their jobs for other reasons and thus do more drugs, and on and on, can end up homeless and it's not because rent increased.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c1fzi",
                    "author": "pigeon888",
                    "body": "This is true. OP's causal model is incomplete.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "l8c0zmw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c1hnr",
                    "author": "TemperatureThese7909",
                    "body": "I would argue it's actually very easy to \"solve homelessness\".\u00a0\n\n\nKill all the homeless. Put all the homeless on buses and don't let them come back. Burn down the tent cities. Jail all the homeless. Etc.\u00a0\n\n\nWhat's hard is to solve homelessness ethically.\u00a0\n\n\nWhether we are using prevention or reversal as our metric, in my view it doesn't count if it comes through an immoral means.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c2rmj",
                    "author": "yyzjertl",
                    "body": "> What's hard is to solve homelessness ethically.\u00a0\n\nThat's not especially hard either: just provide them with housing. Nothing unethical about giving someone an apartment.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8c1hnr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8cajc6",
                    "author": "orthranus",
                    "body": "Why do richer cities have higher per capita homelessness rates than poorer cities? Because homelessness is fundamentally a dynamic problem where people in areas with work deficits go to places with work surpluses. Because housing adapts more slowly than most other sectors you get a level of homelessness. Even if government programs exist they too must chase the emerging data and play predict the trend games just as the private sector does. So, even with a socially optimal supply-side policy, there will be a level of homelessness, and those cases must also be judged as part of a city's policy. There is no point of no return for a homeless person, and it is a society's duty, and it's frankly cheaper, to help those in crisis.\n\nNow on the subject of rent control, there is a quote from Von Th\u00fcenen, a German agronomist, \"capital that is not maintained soon ceases to be capital\". Rent control is one of the worst long run choices for housing because the private sector will basically stop producing at rent levels where they could invest their money elsewhere. It isn't a bad idea to limit the rate at which rent can rise because it shelters renters from economic fluctuations. The big winner policies are those which twart Nimbyism and grant developers and buyers lots of freedom of choice and command side big block housing projects. On the latter look at the history of Vienna on the former look to the successes of my home city of Edmonton.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8cdu02",
                    "author": "PixieBaronicsi",
                    "body": "Rent rises are not really something that the \u201ccity\u201d has control of in the short term. If you disagree, can you think of a city that has prevented rent increases by suing something within the city\u2019s control? Other factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place, like unemployment and cracks in the welfare system are usually more to do with macroeconomic conditions and national government policy (or state, depending on which country)\n\nOn the other hand drug rehabilitation schemes and emergency accommodation for the homeless generally do fall within the remit of municipal government, and therefore the ability of a city to help the homeless through these schemes is a much more reasonable judge of the city\u2019s competence than those factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8cfg28",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "The city can't block rent rises but it can offer assistance to people who are affected by rising rents.  It seems like you could pick some baseline rent where under \"normal\" conditions it would rise a certain amount every year, but then if it rises significantly above that, give vouchers to people to help them cover the rent increases. From the tenant's point of view it's like rent control, except that instead of forcing all of the costs on the landlord, it spreads the cost more evenly among taxpayers in proportion to their ability to pay (which seems a lot more fair).",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "l8cdu02"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8culr9",
                    "author": "Shoddy_Young7565",
                    "body": "As long as we share our streets with people with a huge sense of entitlement, we will never get rid of homelessness. if the tinted community helped each other the world would be a better place",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8fig6t",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Shoddy_Young7565 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Shoddy_Young7565&message=Shoddy_Young7565%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8culr9/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8culr9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8d59jq",
                    "author": "4zero4error31",
                    "body": "Actually it's extremely easy to get homeless people off the streets, and cheaper than letting them remain homeless too!  \n\nHomelessness is almost always caused by: Lack of money, lack of available housing, or disease of some kind (including medical debt in the US, mental illness, addiction, etc.)  All three can be solved by offering free housing to homeless people, giving everyone a universal basic income, and offering free therapy/medical care.  Sure, that sounds insane and expensive and \\*socialist,\\* but it's also a proven fact that it works.  And what's even better is IT'S CHEAPER THAN LETTING THEM STAY HOMELESS!!  Between the cost of emergency room visits, healthcare, police expenditures, and loss to crime, you actually SAVE money by tens of thousands of dollars per person.  A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars.\n\nUtah, yes Utah, did it and it cut homelessness by 74% and saved the state money.  : [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free)\n\nFinland does it and it's saving them money too: [https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9](https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9)\n\n  \nThe simple truth is that having homeless people is a choice, one made out of ignorance or prejudice.  We see homeless people as immoral, as weak, as failures, and so we say they deserve their punishment for whatever they obviously must have done to deserve this.  It's a lie we've told ourselves for so long we can hardly even imagine there's another way, but it' still a lie.  The people in charge choose to have homeless people because of protestant work ethics or because they want the middle and lower classes to keep producing out of fear of what awaits them if they stop.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8fi7ln",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/4zero4error31 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%204zero4error31&message=4zero4error31%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8d59jq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8d59jq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8dvb28",
                    "author": "fervent_muffin",
                    "body": "I can agree with this. I worked in this field for awhile and I came to the conclusion that our systems/resources were great at stopping situationally homeless from becoming chronically homeless, but it was not well equipped at elevating chronically homeless into regular society.\u00a0\n\n\nBecause of this, I've considered the idea of a new type of institutionalization, circa pre-Regan, but with much better oversight and ethics for the chronically homeless who have demonstrated they do not want to be participants of \"regular society\". Letting them occupy the public space while not playing by the rest of societies rules is a recipe for disaster as we have observed. The other day, I had a coworker get randomly stabbed in the neck by one of these people.\u00a0\n\n\nBut those who would say just put them in jail or get them off the street misunderstand the issue. Both the left and the right prescribe solutions destined to fail because the lack a grasp on some basic fundamentals of this subject. I doubt this idea will gain any political traction, but in my professional opinion, it's the most likely to bring us to a mutually satisfactory solution.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8eyy89",
                    "author": "Basic-Reputation605",
                    "body": "Looking at new homeless cases doesn't give you an accurate measure of how they handle the crisis.\n\nFor the purpise of this post the crisis can be simplified with two parts, one they don't have homes, two they aren't functioning members of society.\n\nHomeless people typically travel too places that are more accommodating to their lifestyles. More social programs, more opportunities for free stuff and continuation of their lifestyle. They migrate massively increasing homelessness in those areas.\n\nTypically but not always these same.plaves have social programs offering extremely cheap or free housing. These programs do not solve the second part of the homeless crisis being that they still don't contribute to society. All this does is prevent them from falling under the homeless metric skewing the number while they still live the homeless lifestyle but now with a roof. Why be a bum with no roof when you could be a bum with one? This skews the numbers so yes there's less people without \"homes\", but these people still aren't fully functioning members of society they just have a roof now they don't have to work.to pay for. This doesn't solve the problem at all it hides it. I get that it's ethical to provide homes but all we do is end up lying to ourselves through numbers.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8f9mg2",
                    "author": "icansawyou",
                    "body": "What you are writing about is not just a matter of rent. Obviously, the people who found themselves on the street had problems.: they were unable to pay for housing. That is, they did not have the means. And that's where a lot of questions arise.   \n  \nWhat influences the amount of rent for housing? How can this factor be influenced without prejudice to the landlord? How high was the income of these people? Why didn't this person change his place of residence to optimize expenses? Why did the authorities (in the broadest sense of the word) not worry about the fact that a person finds himself on the street?   \n  \nProbably, to answer these and other questions, it would be great to conduct research on this topic or refer to one if it has already been conducted.   \n  \nI am not from the USA myself, but I have seen videos where crowds of homeless people roam the American streets. It is, of course, a terrible sight. I can only assume that the homeless are some kind of symptom of some kind of structural and systemic error within your society and how it develops socially and economically. I'm sorry if my final conclusion seems trivial and obvious to you.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8fjq7d",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Rent is one issue, and *maybe* the city or county has some control over that, but... what we've seen recently is that it's actually almost entirely economics and wider politics that cause large increases in homelessness. \n\nRent rarely causes homelessness except indirectly. Losing your *job* (or pay not keeping up with inflation, generally, not just rents) causes homelessness. \n\nAnd I *really* don't see how cities are reasonably going to deal with *that* issue by \"keeping rents down\" in any kind of long-term fashion that would be any easier/cheaper than simply giving people money... \n\nWhich would also solve the \"rents are increasing\" issue if we were willing to do that.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8g5mpe",
                    "author": "Nihiliatis9",
                    "body": "Every time I see a church I ask myself... how many homeless people could they feed and house?",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8gat28",
                    "author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
                    "body": "(1)\n\nI appreciate your thoughtful view, because you're taking a complicated issue and being more specific about it than others might tend to be. But I think we can break this down even **more** than you do already. \n\nThe 'homelessness' problem in America is really a collection of related, but separate problems. You've highlighted one important distinction: the problem of preventing new homelessness vs. the problem of relieving existing homelessness. \n\nBut there are more high-level distinctions we can make. There is the problem of chronic homelessness vs. the problem of short-term homelessness (the modal number of days that people experience homelessness is 1). There's the problem of people being unhoused vs. the problem of public nuisance. There are the health problems *caused* by homelessness. There are unique problems of homelessness particular to certain populations: people with children, people with disabilities, and yes people with substance use disorders. \n\nSo, we can and should be even **more** specific when we're talking about homelessness than you proposed. \n\n(2)\n\nIt's good to recognize that a jurisdiction could be doing well on some of these things and poorly on others. When SPD does sweeps of camps, they're (at least attempting) to solve the problem of public nuisance, but they're obviously not addressing any of the other homelessness problems, and likely making them worse in at least some cases. \n\nBut Seattle and King County bear some responsibility for **all** of them. When you go down 3rd by the County Court house and DESC, many of the people there are not newly homeless. But there is a lot of suffering there, and the human services, housing services, and public health services of Seattle and King County have been charged with addressing that suffering. If they are doing a poor job (by whatever metric is reasonable), it's acceptable to \"judge\" them appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "moderate"
    ],
    [
        [
            {
                "id": "1dehxoa",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 78,
                "parent_id": null,
                "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                "subreddit": "changemyview"
            },
            {
                "id": "l8c1krc",
                "author": "chronberries",
                "body": "A huge chunk of the homeless population in any given city isn\u2019t actually from that city. People become homeless in the suburban and rural regions too, then travel to cities because it\u2019s easier to survive there. A good number of them are also recent immigrants with nowhere to go. So, the homeless population rising in a city is not at all entirely a result of that city\u2019s policies, efforts, etc.\n\nIf we want to address the problem of unhoused people, we have to do it nationwide. The cities alone can\u2019t fix this problem, and can\u2019t reasonably be blamed for it to begin with.",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 58,
                "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
            },
            {
                "id": "l8c7twk",
                "author": "bennetthaselton",
                "body": "**\u0394**\n\nAdding the delta because this at least prompted me to edit the post and clarify: We should count only \"new\" homeless cases where the person used to live in the city.\n\nI agree with what you wrote, I had thought about this too but forgot to mention it. (And people also migrate from other cities where the services are less generous.)\n\nHowever, I would still count this as an argument in favor of judging a city's success by the number of new homeless, rather than the size of the existing population.  Here's why:\n\nIf a city provides generous services, that attracts people from other areas. You might view this as good (\"That guy might have died in that other city, but we saved him\") or bad (\"Ugh, more homeless\"), but either way, if the city is judged by the size of its homeless population, this metric now looks worse, unless you have a way of tracking and not counting the people who moved.\n\nOn the other hand, if you are just tracking cases of *new* homelessness (among people who used to live in your city), then your city doesn't get penalized for other homeless people moving there.",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 16,
                "parent_id": "l8c1krc"
            },
            {
                "id": "l8c85t2",
                "author": "DeltaBot",
                "body": "Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/chronberries ([6\u2206](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/chronberries)).\n\n^[Delta\u00a0System\u00a0Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)",
                "date": "2024-06-12",
                "score": 2,
                "parent_id": "l8c7twk"
            }
        ],
        [
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c0190",
                    "author": "LapazGracie",
                    "body": "Now I often rail against USSR as having an atrocious idiotic economic system. But there were some things they did really well.\n\n1) General education. Mostly because they were very strict disciplinaries and had very high education standards.\n\n2) Dealing with homeless.\n\nThis is what they did. \n\nFirst of all you have to understand that while public transportation was very cheap. You couldn't get on there smelling like shit. You'd get thrown out. And pretty much nobody had a car so public transport was the way to get around. The roads were trash, most people used busses and eletrichkas.\n\nSo say they found a homeless man in Moscow. They would send that guy away in a 100KM radius away from Moscow. Remember public transit is all you got and they won't let you on. So it's not so easy to get back.\n\nIn his new home he would have free food, free housing, free medicine and free clothing. Everything would be taken care of. But all of it would be awful quality. The cheapest shit, old ass equipment. They would also be forced to work. They got paid a little bit but mostly the work was there to keep them busy.\n\nNow either you cleaned your act up. Or you stayed in that shithole forever. It was obviously well equipped to deal with alcoholism. Drug addiction was less common but they had \"treatment\" for that (mostly cold turkey). \n\nAnyway this was a very effective system. It was brutal enough to where people didn't really want to become homeless at all costs. Or at least they stayed the fuck away from major metro areas if they did. And on top of that the regular citizens almost never had to interact with them.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c1ag1",
                    "author": "pigeon888",
                    "body": "Sounds like prison",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8c0190"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c0zmw",
                    "author": "Bobbob34",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\". Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nI don't think anyone thinks homelessness is a single-cause problem at any level. \n\nHowever, you're making huge assumptions here. Mainly that an aggregate increase in rent would cause an increase in homelessness AND that that increase would thus somehow be unrelated to drug use. \n\nThose are just random assumptions. An increase in average rent can have a ton of causes. Widespread drug use can be one of those, as people may default, may cause issues in properties, etc. \n\nAlso those may be loosely- to un-related. Prices can rise and thus people who spend more on drugs, or lose their jobs due to drug use, or lose their jobs for other reasons and thus do more drugs, and on and on, can end up homeless and it's not because rent increased.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 13,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c1fzi",
                    "author": "pigeon888",
                    "body": "This is true. OP's causal model is incomplete.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 6,
                    "parent_id": "l8c0zmw"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c1hnr",
                    "author": "TemperatureThese7909",
                    "body": "I would argue it's actually very easy to \"solve homelessness\".\u00a0\n\n\nKill all the homeless. Put all the homeless on buses and don't let them come back. Burn down the tent cities. Jail all the homeless. Etc.\u00a0\n\n\nWhat's hard is to solve homelessness ethically.\u00a0\n\n\nWhether we are using prevention or reversal as our metric, in my view it doesn't count if it comes through an immoral means.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8c2rmj",
                    "author": "yyzjertl",
                    "body": "> What's hard is to solve homelessness ethically.\u00a0\n\nThat's not especially hard either: just provide them with housing. Nothing unethical about giving someone an apartment.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8c1hnr"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8cajc6",
                    "author": "orthranus",
                    "body": "Why do richer cities have higher per capita homelessness rates than poorer cities? Because homelessness is fundamentally a dynamic problem where people in areas with work deficits go to places with work surpluses. Because housing adapts more slowly than most other sectors you get a level of homelessness. Even if government programs exist they too must chase the emerging data and play predict the trend games just as the private sector does. So, even with a socially optimal supply-side policy, there will be a level of homelessness, and those cases must also be judged as part of a city's policy. There is no point of no return for a homeless person, and it is a society's duty, and it's frankly cheaper, to help those in crisis.\n\nNow on the subject of rent control, there is a quote from Von Th\u00fcenen, a German agronomist, \"capital that is not maintained soon ceases to be capital\". Rent control is one of the worst long run choices for housing because the private sector will basically stop producing at rent levels where they could invest their money elsewhere. It isn't a bad idea to limit the rate at which rent can rise because it shelters renters from economic fluctuations. The big winner policies are those which twart Nimbyism and grant developers and buyers lots of freedom of choice and command side big block housing projects. On the latter look at the history of Vienna on the former look to the successes of my home city of Edmonton.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 5,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8cdu02",
                    "author": "PixieBaronicsi",
                    "body": "Rent rises are not really something that the \u201ccity\u201d has control of in the short term. If you disagree, can you think of a city that has prevented rent increases by suing something within the city\u2019s control? Other factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place, like unemployment and cracks in the welfare system are usually more to do with macroeconomic conditions and national government policy (or state, depending on which country)\n\nOn the other hand drug rehabilitation schemes and emergency accommodation for the homeless generally do fall within the remit of municipal government, and therefore the ability of a city to help the homeless through these schemes is a much more reasonable judge of the city\u2019s competence than those factors that lead to people becoming homeless in the first place",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 8,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8cfg28",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "The city can't block rent rises but it can offer assistance to people who are affected by rising rents.  It seems like you could pick some baseline rent where under \"normal\" conditions it would rise a certain amount every year, but then if it rises significantly above that, give vouchers to people to help them cover the rent increases. From the tenant's point of view it's like rent control, except that instead of forcing all of the costs on the landlord, it spreads the cost more evenly among taxpayers in proportion to their ability to pay (which seems a lot more fair).",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 2,
                    "parent_id": "l8cdu02"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8culr9",
                    "author": "Shoddy_Young7565",
                    "body": "As long as we share our streets with people with a huge sense of entitlement, we will never get rid of homelessness. if the tinted community helped each other the world would be a better place",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8fig6t",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/Shoddy_Young7565 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Shoddy_Young7565&message=Shoddy_Young7565%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8culr9/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8culr9"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8d59jq",
                    "author": "4zero4error31",
                    "body": "Actually it's extremely easy to get homeless people off the streets, and cheaper than letting them remain homeless too!  \n\nHomelessness is almost always caused by: Lack of money, lack of available housing, or disease of some kind (including medical debt in the US, mental illness, addiction, etc.)  All three can be solved by offering free housing to homeless people, giving everyone a universal basic income, and offering free therapy/medical care.  Sure, that sounds insane and expensive and \\*socialist,\\* but it's also a proven fact that it works.  And what's even better is IT'S CHEAPER THAN LETTING THEM STAY HOMELESS!!  Between the cost of emergency room visits, healthcare, police expenditures, and loss to crime, you actually SAVE money by tens of thousands of dollars per person.  A Colorado study found that the average homeless person cost the state forty-three thousand dollars a year, while housing that person would cost just seventeen thousand dollars.\n\nUtah, yes Utah, did it and it cut homelessness by 74% and saved the state money.  : [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free)\n\nFinland does it and it's saving them money too: [https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9](https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/a-paradigm-shift-in-social-policy-how-finland-conquered-homelessness-a-ba1a531e-8129-4c71-94fc-7268c5b109d9)\n\n  \nThe simple truth is that having homeless people is a choice, one made out of ignorance or prejudice.  We see homeless people as immoral, as weak, as failures, and so we say they deserve their punishment for whatever they obviously must have done to deserve this.  It's a lie we've told ourselves for so long we can hardly even imagine there's another way, but it' still a lie.  The people in charge choose to have homeless people because of protestant work ethics or because they want the middle and lower classes to keep producing out of fear of what awaits them if they stop.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8fi7ln",
                    "author": "changemyview-ModTeam",
                    "body": "Sorry, u/4zero4error31 \u2013 your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:\n\n> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP\u2019s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).  \n\nIf you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the \"Top level comments that are against rule 1\" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%204zero4error31&message=4zero4error31%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\\[their%20comment\\]\\(https://old.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/-/l8d59jq/\\)%20because\\.\\.\\.) within one week of this notice being posted. \n\nPlease note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "l8d59jq"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8dvb28",
                    "author": "fervent_muffin",
                    "body": "I can agree with this. I worked in this field for awhile and I came to the conclusion that our systems/resources were great at stopping situationally homeless from becoming chronically homeless, but it was not well equipped at elevating chronically homeless into regular society.\u00a0\n\n\nBecause of this, I've considered the idea of a new type of institutionalization, circa pre-Regan, but with much better oversight and ethics for the chronically homeless who have demonstrated they do not want to be participants of \"regular society\". Letting them occupy the public space while not playing by the rest of societies rules is a recipe for disaster as we have observed. The other day, I had a coworker get randomly stabbed in the neck by one of these people.\u00a0\n\n\nBut those who would say just put them in jail or get them off the street misunderstand the issue. Both the left and the right prescribe solutions destined to fail because the lack a grasp on some basic fundamentals of this subject. I doubt this idea will gain any political traction, but in my professional opinion, it's the most likely to bring us to a mutually satisfactory solution.\u00a0",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8eyy89",
                    "author": "Basic-Reputation605",
                    "body": "Looking at new homeless cases doesn't give you an accurate measure of how they handle the crisis.\n\nFor the purpise of this post the crisis can be simplified with two parts, one they don't have homes, two they aren't functioning members of society.\n\nHomeless people typically travel too places that are more accommodating to their lifestyles. More social programs, more opportunities for free stuff and continuation of their lifestyle. They migrate massively increasing homelessness in those areas.\n\nTypically but not always these same.plaves have social programs offering extremely cheap or free housing. These programs do not solve the second part of the homeless crisis being that they still don't contribute to society. All this does is prevent them from falling under the homeless metric skewing the number while they still live the homeless lifestyle but now with a roof. Why be a bum with no roof when you could be a bum with one? This skews the numbers so yes there's less people without \"homes\", but these people still aren't fully functioning members of society they just have a roof now they don't have to work.to pay for. This doesn't solve the problem at all it hides it. I get that it's ethical to provide homes but all we do is end up lying to ourselves through numbers.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8f9mg2",
                    "author": "icansawyou",
                    "body": "What you are writing about is not just a matter of rent. Obviously, the people who found themselves on the street had problems.: they were unable to pay for housing. That is, they did not have the means. And that's where a lot of questions arise.   \n  \nWhat influences the amount of rent for housing? How can this factor be influenced without prejudice to the landlord? How high was the income of these people? Why didn't this person change his place of residence to optimize expenses? Why did the authorities (in the broadest sense of the word) not worry about the fact that a person finds himself on the street?   \n  \nProbably, to answer these and other questions, it would be great to conduct research on this topic or refer to one if it has already been conducted.   \n  \nI am not from the USA myself, but I have seen videos where crowds of homeless people roam the American streets. It is, of course, a terrible sight. I can only assume that the homeless are some kind of symptom of some kind of structural and systemic error within your society and how it develops socially and economically. I'm sorry if my final conclusion seems trivial and obvious to you.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8fjq7d",
                    "author": "hacksoncode",
                    "body": "Rent is one issue, and *maybe* the city or county has some control over that, but... what we've seen recently is that it's actually almost entirely economics and wider politics that cause large increases in homelessness. \n\nRent rarely causes homelessness except indirectly. Losing your *job* (or pay not keeping up with inflation, generally, not just rents) causes homelessness. \n\nAnd I *really* don't see how cities are reasonably going to deal with *that* issue by \"keeping rents down\" in any kind of long-term fashion that would be any easier/cheaper than simply giving people money... \n\nWhich would also solve the \"rents are increasing\" issue if we were willing to do that.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8g5mpe",
                    "author": "Nihiliatis9",
                    "body": "Every time I see a church I ask myself... how many homeless people could they feed and house?",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ],
            [
                {
                    "id": "1dehxoa",
                    "author": "bennetthaselton",
                    "body": "We know that large increases in rent are followed by large increases in homelessness (e.g. in Seattle where I live and where this has been very obvious in the last 15 years). But people often miss the conclusion: If rent going up leads to homelessness going up, that means the increase in homelessness was not caused by \"drugs\".  Even if the newly homeless started doing drugs to cope after they became homeless, the drugs did not cause the increase in homelessness.\n\nIn fact, if rents going up is generally followed by homelessness increase, it means that almost by definition, the increase in homelessness could have been prevented by keeping the rent down. The simplest way to do this is to build new housing (either government or private-sector). You *could* keep rents down by setting rent control, but this solution has drawbacks since it disincentivizes people from building new housing. But however you do it, it seems clear that to prevent an increase in homelessness due to rent increase, all you have to do is keep the rent from increasing.\n\nOn other hand, once a person is *already* homeless, getting them off the streets and back into housing is much harder -- they may now have addiction issues or mental health issues aggravated by living on the streets, they now have a gap in their housing history, a gap in their employment history, etc.\n\nSo when a city attempts to reduce homelessness \\*overall\\*, they're faced with an almost unsolvable problem, since it's so hard to reduce the number of existing cases.\n\nSo instead, judge a city's \"success\" based on reduction in the number of \\*new\\* homeless cases. \\[Edited to clarify: this refers to people who used to live in that city and then became homeless. The city should not be penalized if people become homeless in other cities and then move to your city.\\]\n\nThis will incentivize a city to spend their resources where they will make the most difference (under the assumption that, for example, for a given fixed number of dollars, you can choose between preventing 100 new cases of homelessness). Provide humanitarian services to the existing homeless population, but when looking at the costs of getting them back into housing, the blunt truth is that we can help more people (and reduce homelessness more overall) by putting that effort into preventing new cases of homelessness.  CMV.\n\nEdited to add: When I say \"city's policies\" this can be extended to refer to government policies more generally, since the anti-homelessness efforts might not be primarily the responsiblity of the city, even if the increase in homelessness is much more visible in a city like Seattle than in the surrounding areas.",
                    "date": "2024-06-12",
                    "score": 78,
                    "parent_id": null,
                    "title": "CMV: it's relatively easy to prevent an increase in new homelessness, but relatively hard to get existing homeless of the streets. So, judge a city's anti-homelessness efforts based on the number of *new* cases they prevent.",
                    "url": "/r/changemyview/comments/1dehxoa/cmv_its_relatively_easy_to_prevent_an_increase_in/",
                    "subreddit": "changemyview"
                },
                {
                    "id": "l8gat28",
                    "author": "ThatSpencerGuy",
                    "body": "(1)\n\nI appreciate your thoughtful view, because you're taking a complicated issue and being more specific about it than others might tend to be. But I think we can break this down even **more** than you do already. \n\nThe 'homelessness' problem in America is really a collection of related, but separate problems. You've highlighted one important distinction: the problem of preventing new homelessness vs. the problem of relieving existing homelessness. \n\nBut there are more high-level distinctions we can make. There is the problem of chronic homelessness vs. the problem of short-term homelessness (the modal number of days that people experience homelessness is 1). There's the problem of people being unhoused vs. the problem of public nuisance. There are the health problems *caused* by homelessness. There are unique problems of homelessness particular to certain populations: people with children, people with disabilities, and yes people with substance use disorders. \n\nSo, we can and should be even **more** specific when we're talking about homelessness than you proposed. \n\n(2)\n\nIt's good to recognize that a jurisdiction could be doing well on some of these things and poorly on others. When SPD does sweeps of camps, they're (at least attempting) to solve the problem of public nuisance, but they're obviously not addressing any of the other homelessness problems, and likely making them worse in at least some cases. \n\nBut Seattle and King County bear some responsibility for **all** of them. When you go down 3rd by the County Court house and DESC, many of the people there are not newly homeless. But there is a lot of suffering there, and the human services, housing services, and public health services of Seattle and King County have been charged with addressing that suffering. If they are doing a poor job (by whatever metric is reasonable), it's acceptable to \"judge\" them appropriately.",
                    "date": "2024-06-13",
                    "score": 1,
                    "parent_id": "1dehxoa"
                }
            ]
        ],
        "challenge"
    ]
]